Sir John Keegan is wrong: radical Islam could win

Asia Times ^ | October 12, 2001 | Spengler

[RogueIsland]

Al-Qaeda wants no territory

I don't think this is quite correct. I've read good articles that convincingly suggest that Bin Laden is quite interested in overthrowing the secular governments of the middle east, Saudi Arabia in particular, and unifying them all under his vision of an Islamic mega state. Sounds like territorial ambitions to me.

[eclectic]

radical Islam could win

Na-ah, we got the Bomb!

[Restorer]

I respectfully disagree. The attacks on 9/11 were not war. They were theater. Spectacularly evil theater, but theater nonetheless.

The Western way of war, waged most successfully by the Romans, is methodical and scientific. Horror shows work only on those who give in to the horror. I refuse to believe that the US will surrender because we are freaked out.

They can do enormous damage, possibly. Especially if they get their hands on nukes, which is quite likely. Are they capable of defeating or destroying the US and its allies? Absolutely not!

Surrender to these people would only bring a chance for life in a world where death would be preferable.

[gjenkins]

I don't know that being evil first is the way to defeat evil. I do think he has a point ... evil can pull the plug on this whole ball of wax if it ever truly wants to. If and when it tries, I don't think we will want to oblige it by helping.

[Richard Kimball]

This is a brilliant article. I've been thinking, ever since the attacks, that we are walking around in a state of denial. We view wars as something like WWII. The countries fight, one wins, a treaty is signed. These people don't see it that way. As long as they breathe, they want to kill. They love killing us more than they hate seeing their children die. At some point in time, we will be faced with the prospect of either the constant attack, response, that the other side seems to love so much, or we will say, "I guess we'll have to kill them all."

We want that "Perry Mason" moment. We want the other side to confess. If we kill all but two people in Afghanistan, one of them will start searching for a way to get revenge.

[Restorer]

Hitler's tactical advantage lay in his capacity to be more horrible than his opponents could imagine. The most horrible thing of all is that he well might have succeeded if not for his own megalomaniac propensity to overreach.

This is just stupid. This advantage lasted right up to the outbreak of war and ended right there. His "horribleness" during the war (the camps, massacres of civilians in occupied countries, the "master race" doctrine) was almost certainly a net detriment to his ability to win the war. (As the author states in a slightly form.)

How does one wage war more "horribly" than with nuclear weapons and "firestorm" attacks as were used on Dresden and Hanburg?

Horrifying Nazis? Pathetic amateurs.

[Centurion2000]

We view wars as something like WWII. The countries fight, one wins, a treaty is signed. These people don't see it that way. As long as they breathe, they want to kill. They love killing us more than they hate seeing their children die. At some point in time, we will be faced with the prospect of either the constant attack, response, that the other side seems to love so much, or we will say, "I guess we'll have to kill them all."

you have a point and they have a lot in common with kamikaze pilots.

Of course we know what cooled that fury .... 35 kiltons of radiant energy.

It may require much more than that this time.

[Restorer]

At some point in time, we will be faced with the prospect of either the constant attack, response, that the other side seems to love so much, or we will say, "I guess we'll have to kill them all."

Good point. Who do you nominate as "them all?"

All Arabs? All Moslems? All "people of middle eastern appearance"? All people with skin darker than yours?

I agree we might have to kill them all. I just don't want to expand this class more than necessary.

If necessary, we do have the capability to kill as large a number as required.

[NoControllingLegalAuthority]

"I guess we'll have to kill them all."

I think we are going to come quickly to this conclusion. Ultimately, I believe, it will be them or us. It's a horrible choice but one we may have to make.

[BunnySlippers]

or we will say, "I guess we'll have to kill them all."

Since 9/11 I have felt this has to be the only solution. Americans have no taste for killing ... but another terrorist attack of sufficient magnitude will toughen our resolve. It's us or them.

[Polybius]

Hitler's tactical advantage lay in his capacity to be more horrible than his opponents could imagine....

This is just stupid. This advantage lasted right up to the outbreak of war and ended right there.

How does one wage war more "horribly" than with nuclear weapons and "firestorm" attacks as were used on Dresden and Hanburg?

Agreed. The German initial tactical advantage lay in the fact that the Germans invented the AIR-LAND Battle doctrine while the French were busy burying themselves in the ground and leaving their left flank in the air.

Death camps merely siphoned resources from the German war effort.

[Jorge]

radical Islam could win

Wrong. Radical Islam is self defeating in that it oppresses it's own people and will always produce a society that is under-achieving, weak and backward compared to the free societies of the western world.

[Deep_6]

Fairly profound reading, but a slight bit skewed.

The terrorists are fighting against a known quantity; a country;
Our country; Our Nation; Our army and our people.

We are fighting against the unknown, a group that disappears
at will, into the night.

We're fighting a hypothetical; battling against a hypothetical force.
We are fighting "what ifs"; imagined quantities and fears instilled
by suggestion and imagination alone. A large percentage of the
time, we are our own enemy.

This fine web site, with all the intellect and mental power that is
brought forth to these forums, we read posts that relate the fears.

One claiming the possibility of water supply contamination, another
regarding power supplies and grids. Nuclear power as a target, and
our dams. Anthrax, sarin gas and various plagues.

Those that promote giving up rights and liberties for security, and
those of us that fear the loss of rights and liberties more than the
loss of any security.

We have become a nation of fear, and we are afraid to admit it.

Unlike Hitler, the terrorists are not bound to a nation or country.
They can roam like gypsies, striking at random. The unfortunate
complication it creates, is a certain madness that encourages other
psychopaths to strike in their shadow. We will not readily know if it's
our terrorist enemy from afar, or the one emerging from the home-grown
psychopath's mind.

We are at war...... but we will have trouble finding our enemy.

It will be a long, long journey and we should take note of those
around us, if they are capable of going the distance or not.

We'll have to lend a hand to those that weaken, not fight among
ourselves as we have already begun to do.

That'll be 1/2 the battle. I'm not sure what the other 1/2 is.
And I have a feeling Spengler doesn't know either.

[F-117A]

"Unleash Hell!"

[wretchard]

Anyone who has faced an Al-Qaeda type organization will know that they must lose. Their principal weakness is what Spengler accounts as their strength: their extreme ruthlessness and nihilism. American popular culture discovered radical Islam belatedly. Before the the World Trade Center, there was Iran, Algeria, Aceh, Timor, Mindanao, Jammu and Kashmir and Afghanistan itself. But no one sat up and noticed, because they were only killing wogs.

Hundreds of thousands of Third World citizens have died at the hands of radical Islamists and they've generated a backlash all their own. Iran is a case in point. The mullahs are a spent force. The Afghans hate the Taliban, and given enough time, will kill them off. You only have to travel to the Mollucas to know that the Jehad boys are facing their own Vietnam. And do you remember the Bamian Buddhas? The Jehad boys want to take on the world. Injustice and intolerance for all is their watchword, and resistance and revenge will be the common riposte.

Spengler needn't worry that the West's will to fight radical Islamism will flag. Al-Qaeda will supply the goad. A blown nuclear reactor here, an anthrax attack there, a schoolhouse full of children with their throats cut thrown in for good measure, will ensure that we will look back on September 11, 2001 as the "good old days".

Al-Qaeda's entire repertoire consists soley of the drumbeat of death. In their universe, homes are principally useful for burying homosexuals alive and it will not occur to them to employ shavers for any other purpose than slitting someone's throat.

We are in the early days yet. Al-Qaeda has taught the world fear; now it will teach them to hate.

[Tribune7]

Islam is increasing in population. The pro-abortion West is decreasing in population. To win, we have to change.

[calmseas]

Hitler's tactical advantage lay in his capacity to be more horrible than his opponents could imagine. The most horrible thing of all is that he well might have succeeded if not for his own megalomaniac propensity to overreach.

I have heard this before, and it is a fallacy. The days of the Thousand Years' Reich were number from the moment Pearl Harbor was bombed by the Japanese.

[Polybius]

Americans have no taste for killing ...

Dresden. Berlin. Cologne. Hamburg. The Tokyo Fire Raids. Hiroshima. Nagasaki.

When pushed far enough, Americans can kill into the 5 or 6-figures in a single day.

[Restorer]

Right. At its high point the Axis armed forces in Europe numbered around 10,000,000 men. They spent untold resources shipping Jews and others all over Europe, instead of just killing them on the spot. Let's see, how long would it take 10,000,000 soldiers to kill 6,000,000 Jews, if deployed logically?