Posted on 04/02/2009 12:26:23 PM PDT by swarthyguy
With increasing frequency your editor reads these days that the Taliban is composed mainly of men who are fighting for the money. The implication is that if we give them money in the form of jobs, they will give up the Taliban.
.......
Remember also: possibly the majority of these youngsters are coming from the madrassas, religious schools in which they have been enrolled since age 6, 10, 14, or whenever their families decided there were too many mouths to feed. By the time they reach 16-18, these kids are possibly the most heavily indoctrinated kids in the world.
On the other side, lets look at your typical Afghan or Pakistani recruit. Is he motivated by money or by belief in his cause? That's an unfair question, isn't it, because you wouldn't see too many volunteering if they were paid - say - a stipend of $20/month.
Isn't it possible that your average Talib is actually more motivated by ideology than any of his adversaries? Else why do these chaps regularly go out and take whacking great casualties against US/NATO troops, and two-three months later their units are built back, and they set out once again, to lose in ratios from 10-1 to 100-1? And then they're back again, and again.
The Americans love to describe themselves as warriors. Just another example of the overheated rhetoric that inflicts and afflicts all aspects of American life. The same as everyone is a hero. For example, a couple of days ago, two men in the street saw a little 3-year old who had crawled out of an open window of her building and hanging on for dear life. They rushed to stand underneath and caught her as she fell. The police described them as "heroes". No, Sir, and Madam. There's a reason the Medal of Honor is given only for acts "Above and beyond the call of duty", and we in no way mean to diminish the heroism of the five others who likely performed deeds but for many reasons did not get the supreme award.
So it is with the word "warriors". Look people, lets be reasonable. Suiting up in 100-lbs of gear and going out to battle with unimaginable resources at your back is not exactly the stuff of warriorhood. Nor is enlisting for 4 years or even 6, and then coming back to Civvy Street. A warrior is a professional fighter who dedicates his or her entire existence to combat, who is indifferent to anything except the greater glory of the fighting brotherhood or sisterhood and her/his God. S/he fights for justice - even if their definition of justice is different from yours and mine. S/he fights for truth - even if the definition of truth differs. S/he fights for the weak, to uphold the rule of law - even if the definition of week and rule of law is different. Etc.
Your editor despises everything what the Taliban stands for, particularly their extreme repression of women. The only good Talib is a dead Talib, and that is not racist, if only because your Editor is of the same race as the Taliban - South Asian. It's a simple statement of reality. This lot is at its best about ten times worse than the most fanatical communist ever was. The world - not just the West - needs to kill them all until there are no more left to kill. A million, ten million, a hundred million, it makes no difference. No quarter, no mercy, no compassion, Dead is not just Best, it is the ONLY status for these people.
At the same time, if US/NATO were real warriors, they would recognize that there is someone else in the world that are even more real warriors. And that's the self-same Taliban.
Despise them, hate them for what they represent. But if you want to be a warrior, give the Taliban the respect they are owed as warriors. Don't say stupid things like "they fight for money", as if you don't.
Give them respect, and then kill them.
Aside from Boston...
Ok, the author is taking "Warrior" back to its old school definition of people like the Samurai and what not.
Such fanatics who disdain life and live for death can keep the term Warrior, if it has to be so narrow. Give me Soldiers who fight for honor and liberty, and who go home again.
We don’t have warriors, we have soldiers.
Warriors fight for glory. Soldiers fight to win.
Sorry. They’re more like bandits.
Of course, that’s what Mo’ was: A very successful bandit.
Our guys aren’t “warriors.” They’re soldiers. They can live in and with a polite society. The Taliban can’t.
As for respecting them, yes. Always respect the enemy. If you underestimate him, he’ll kill you. If you overestimate him, you’ll just make a bigger mess of him.
I see a resurgent Taliban now that we have a weak President. We destroyed al-Queerda's infrastructure in 2001, but it can come back in a far less centralized manner and, with Uh-bama's tone-deafness in regards to what's really needed in Afghanistan, this could turn into Mr. Mumble's Vietnam.
A tongue in cheek remark by a Royal Navy officer, remarking on how the British fleet snuck out of Singapur, attributed it to the bad eyesight in the dark of the Nipponese.
Been there, done that, and so has my Father, God rest his soul in Heaven.
I have talked to many Vets from Desert Storm and Iraq. "Raghead" is their word of choice. During the Cold war the military called the Russians "Ruskies" or "Ivan". Names, and a derogatory name at that, is necessary because one day you are going to have to kill them. It's for freedom and your country, that's true, but doesn't make your job easier, disrespect of your enemy and dehumanization by a name does. After all, you have to live with yourself afterwords.
The taliban are to be respected the same way the ebola virus is to be respect, for the extreme damage they can do, but not for any warrior ethos they poses. At best, they are homicidal maniacs posing as warriors.
As such, the Citizen Soldiers of the United State will continue to slaughter them in large numbers as long as our leaders possess the political will to let them.
The Samurai, The Knights Templar, and other Warrior classes from history always had some code they attempted to uphold. The taliban have only one one driving motive and rule of conduct... Murder all who oppose them.
Our Soldiers, call them warriors or not, are constrained by an ethos and a code of conduct, and that makes them (IMHO) more warrior than any talib.
A thug, no matter how well trained and indoctrinated is still a thug.
To state that a warrior's ethos is determined by how primitive his tools or how light his battle weight is ludicrous. Every successful warrior culture adopts the best tools and carries a manageable load.
Anyone who mistakes cannon fodder with a true warrior is a fool. We carry better weapons so that we can kill more of these stupid bastards!
No argument there, but what struck me was how radical the writer’s POV looks in today’s love affair with the “moderate” Talibs.
"I also think that Carthage should be destroyed."
You have a point.
Zealot, Extremist, Fanatic.....
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.