They aren't trying to defeat us on the battlefield. They don't have to. They just have to keep showing up long enough to break our national will to keep killing them.
I point out that the two ABC "anchormen" merely injured by an IED received more media sympathetic coverage than the 2,000 U.S. warriors killed thus far on whose graves these two ABC fifth columnists danced a twisted jig every day of the war.
At root is the matter of will: we need Patton not Sarah Lister ("Marines are a little extreme").
Now we don't need to scold and defund Hamas--we need to kill them.
We don't need to understand Ahmadinejad's call for killing all Israelis as a fitting segue to his Mahdi/twelfth imam OCD--we need to put him under a building waiting for DNA results.
In my view, any detainee is one too many--it gives Durbin something to cry about--Durbin who himself should be a detainee.
We as a nation have risen superbly to the darkest challenge--as recently as sixty years ago--but today?
We can't give a child rapist more than sixty days--how can we rally a nation to actually win this "war on terror"?
Particularly when Democrats and their media work tirelessly for our enemies?
Our borders are wide open, the propaganda is category five against us, fighter funding was cut by a congress which raised its pay, while Islamists build nukes in Iran and sit on VX in Syria, and China hews to its published plan:
I favor the retro approach: Fallujah? Daisy cutters. Hostage-takers demand release of prisoners? Do the release a la KGB Beirut 1983.
"World opinion"? Why is al Jazeera still broadcasting?
Why have the NYT NSA leakers not been arraigned in full orange jumpsuit and shackle array?
Is there a war on or will the current obeisance to IAEA and Security Council niceties result in the next terror event being measured in kilotons?
Thank you, Cannoneer No. 4, for a very thought-provoking article.
The article is probably representative of many secular humanists and Americans who believe in God, but bristle at being described as fundamentalist, yet seek to influence worldly affairs.
In a nutshell, the author displays a third grade mentality regarding a relationship with God through Faith.
The war he seeks to analyze is better understood if one even had a second grade education level of how God handles client nations whom have rebelled from faith in Him.
During the end of the Cold War, many 'freemasonic' beliefs influenced US national and international defense strategy. When I use the term 'freemasonic', I refer to those who say they believe God exists, but refuse to express that belief throgh faith in our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus.
Christ controls all of human history and when the US decided to create a 'Green line' to block the Soviets from a warm water port, rather than simply supporting the Great Commission, the US created its own worst enemy.
The Lord loves to take the downtrodden and defeat the arrogant by their own enemies. We have in effect paved the way for considerable suffering for the US as a nation, however, there is still an opportunity through His grace to return to Him, by His protocol, and not suffer further stages of divine discipline.
We appear to be a the third cycle, perhaps entering the fourth cycle of divine discipline. I will go ahead and post some doctrinal studies on the five stages of Divine Discipline in the religion threads for further review by those who may be so inclined.
FWIW, the author's equivocation of Muslim terrorists as strengthened by their faith manifests his own lack of faith and even slight grasp of basics in Scriptural understanding. It would be in his best interest to attend a Bible Bootcamp, before he continues to whine about the inevitability of defeat, or about the will of Muslim terrorists.
For those unaware, Muslim suicide bombers do not display faith, but display arrogance of a human nature void of any belief in God through faith in Him. Instead they attempt to perform good works to gain favor with God without faith in what God has already done to provide a relationship with Him.
I'll post a link here shortly regarding the doctrine of five cycles of discipline.
Semper Fi,..through pisteo in Him.
Okay, I get it. We're all doomed.
Would have been nice if he'd offered some solutions to the problem, rather than just going on about the "genius" of the suicide bomber.
In other words, he draws a straight line between countering terrorism and a war of attrition with the Chinese, posits that all armed conflict lies somewhere on this line, and QED the Revolution in Military Affairs Crowd (RMA) are wrong and undone.
But this is wrong on both ends and everywhere in between. First, only the old army is trying to fight a land war of attrition on the Asian mainland with China. Even McArthur wrote that one off. If the Chinese want to have a war on the Asian mainland, they are going to have to fight it alone. We don't rely on the army to defend us against China. We rely on 6,000 miles of Pacific Ocean backed up by the the Navy and Airforce, and if it were to come to that, a nuclear strike force. And what the H does quantitative incompetence mean?
On the other end he puts words in everyone's mouth. No one has ever claimed that technology is a complete substitue for humans in the war on terror, but it is a fallacy to state that it is an either or proposition. And my flesh and blood looking to join the military when he is older likes the idea of having a lot of high tech stuff between him and some terrorist. Come to think of it, so do I.
This guy misses a lot. High tech can help defeat suicide bombers. Suicide bombers do not act in a vacuum. They require an extensive support network, and one can undo the support network very effectively, partly through intelligence provided through technology. The British figured out the underground bombing pretty darned effectively using a lot of technology and a lot of gumshoe work. At least London is not quite as vulnerable to a few lunatics as Peters would have everyone believe.
He also lumps together journalists, intellectuals, and the revolution in military affairs crowd. He is wrong. Effective military leaders have always been men of genius, and he only shows off his own shortcomings when he wants to counter deadly threats with human bodies.
Peters makes some good points in the first half, but the real meat of the article is the second half, on the extreme danger posed by the international press and by anti-Americanism.
Also a fine explanation of why embittered marxists have combined forces with embittered Muslims, because America has succeeded while they have failed, proving their paradises to be false.
Mark for later read
BTTT