Skip to comments.War cannot be waged 'peacefully'
Posted on 11/26/2006 6:54:29 PM PST by WestNJersey
Want to know why we (meaning the West) won't win the war on terror?
Look at Israel, arguably the toughest, least compromising of the democracies when it comes to combating terrorism. It has been fighting terrorism from the day it became a sovereign state, thanks to the UN.
Yet Israel, after failing to win the brief war with Hezbollah, is back to having to defend itself against rockets from Gaza, where Hamas rules when it isn't feuding with the Palestinian Authority.
The other day, after a rocket attack, Israel announced it was attacking the home of a suspected terrorist leader where explosives were stored. It gave the occupants 30 minutes warning to evacuate before war planes obliterated the house.
So what did the residents do? Well, not only did they not evacuate, but neighbours formed a human shield at the targeted house and, guess what?
The Israel war planes were called off. So now, every time the Israelis give the 30-minute warning which, apparently, is policy, the "human shields" of women and children head for the targeted house, secure in the knowledge that the Israelis won't attack.
This is madness -- no way to fight a war, or terrorists. And this is Israel -- the toughest democracy on the block. And yet Israel hasn't even gotten its kidnapped soldiers back from Hamas and Hezbollah, which provoked Israeli retaliation.
American, British, Canadian and NATO soldiers are even more restrained.
When the Americans had (or thought they had) insurgents in Iraq, mostly confined in Fallujah, a hotbed of enemy activity, rather than obliterate it (as they would have done in WWII) they gave a week's warning for civilians to depart before they attacked.
BAD GUYS DISPERSED
When the assault eventually went in, the bad guys were mostly gone -- dispersed to other areas to continue their slaughter of the innocent.
War cannot easily be waged peacefully. Restraints often mean prolonging the war and increasing its casualties.
Today, humane considerations are paramount. The symbol of peaceful protest is Mahatma Gandhi, the creator of passive resistance that anti-military activists like to cite as a way to thwart authority. Often overlooked, is that Gandhi's formula worked against the British. If he and his followers had lain down in front of Cossacks, the Wehrmacht or the Golden Horde of Genghis Khan, Gandhi would have become an asterisk of history rather than an icon.
A report out of Britain recalls that when American forces first went into Afghanistan, the first Taliban they caught were terrified --apparently convinced by their indoctrination that the American monsters would rip their livers out. Consequently, captives babbled like brooks and told all they knew.
Then they discovered that American soldiers feed you and generally abide by certain rules and ethics unknown to Taliban and al-Qaida.
Thereafter they shut up with no repercussions.
Remember the U.S. bombing of Baghdad prior to the 2003 invasion? Peace activists from the West pompously announced they'd be human shields around prospective targets.
Once the bombing started, these people fled -- outraged that the Americans could be so inhumane, even though none were targeted.
As for Israel, if its government is nuts enough to give warnings of attacks, then it deserves what happens. The next warning should be that if human shields remain, they will quickly become ex-human shields.
One attack should be sufficient to persuade Palestinian human shields to take cover.
It's idiotic to give warning of an attack. Hezbollah and Hamas don't warn intended targets of rocket attacks and suicide bombings.
America lost the Vietnam War because it refused to do what was necessary to win -- a political decision that cost unnecessary lives on both sides, and achieved nothing.
Is that the future of Iraq? It seems so.
Not frivolous at all, but an apt comparison. The only point of debate is whetehr the Islamic nations can become like Japan. If Islam is the Shinto of the 21st Century, we will win without having to be motivated by a huge wake up call. If it isn't, this one goes to the mat, assuming the terrorists don't hit us with something like the scenario on the Jericho TV show.
Initially, Bush demanded they take the city, and the commanders on the scene resisted. They thought a policy of "attrition" would soften up the enemy---right or wrong, it was their initial call. Not long afterward, both the Brits and the Iraqi interim government said they would not support a full frontal assault---the Iraqis, because they said their government would fall apart. Bush THEN instructed Sanchez to hold up.
The Marines transferred out within, as I recall, a month, and the Airborne came in. They maintained the cordon policy, then, a couple of months later, the Marines rotated back in. For those months, both military forces used the "attrition" strategy favored by the Marines the first time around.
West is NOT clear on whether this was the best approach. He concedes that the "attrition" likely saved hundreds of Marines, and probably kept the coalition together, not to mention keeping the Iraqi government in place. Nevertheless, at the same time, he seems to favor the "scorched earth" policy.
If you read "No True Glory," and come to a different conclusion, please let me know.
Over a year ago they were.
I thought President Bush said, He was allowing his generals to call the shots?
I guess beheading hurts less when it is done in the name of economic expansion as opposed to being done in the name of Allah.
If the troops were calling the shots we would have bombed Syria and Iran already. The troops fight with one arm tied behind their backs. You can't win fighting this way.
I thought the Orks showed fear whereas the BORG never did, so I think your analogy is better than mine.
Now, did it make as big a "public statement" as if we had carpet bombed the place? No. But if both the Brits had pulled out and the Iraqi interim government had collapsed in Spring 2004, I don't think Bush would have been re-elected, and it would all be moot now anyway.
Right, just as most mosques are a weapons depot with spires.
I completely agree. It won't be a simple fact of one city gone like Katrina wiping out New Orleans either. The misery will be spread far beyond the actual cite of destruction. Radical Islam will press its death march to the end unless it is utterly wiped out.
I don't watch Jericho, but my understanding is that there have been a dozen or more cities hit by nuclear weapons on the show, and that a few episodes into the series the townspeople witness a number of ICBMs being launched.
And brilliantly so, with the Marines making their quotea by the end of September.
So, can you cite an article showing that they aren't going to make the '06 quota?
Balderdash. All the same things are there: A culture built on avoiding shame and achieving honor, a religion that guarantees paradise for the warrior who kills himself getting at the enemy, degradation of women, a thirst for domination and a belief in the inherent superiority of their culture....
The Japanese went from being the jihadis of their day to being a pacifist nation because they were whipped as badly as a nation can be whipped, and they were remade from the ground up. That will have to happen with Islam, if it can be done at all.
keep hearin Chenehy pulls strings, and is intellectual powerhouse, etc..
Well, what you've heard is the sort of drivel that dipstick lefties traffic in, because they can't imagine that a guy with a Harvard MBA could be smarter than them. Really, get a grip.
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.