Replies

Dead Dog,

Thanks! That was well worth the read. If not for the concerns I have that nukes, if they have them, will be used as an endgame, then I would agree with everything this guy said.

In the article, the author says, "It is safe to say that the Iraqi position has deteriorated to such an extent that a coalition victory can only be disrupted if Iraq uses biological, chemical or atomic weapons. Even in that event, it is probable that such attacks would be self-defeating for the Iraqi regime, both morally and militarily."

I believe the big flaw (if, and only if, they possess the nukes) is in this fellow’s optimism. This what leads him to all but declare victory at this time and to think in Western terms of battles won or lost and attribute these motives to the Iraqi (and at a larger scale, that of Islam) mindset. I would remind him that for every trooper on the ground there, it ain't over until he can move about freely without the worry of being hit. In fact, for the men in the combat units, I would wager that the bitterness of death is inversely proportional to the time left until formal cessation of hostilities.

Further, the Islamofascists are not thinking in terms of decisive wins on a single battlefield. The widespread theology of jihad and significance of suicide attacks seem lost on this fellow. Nyquist remarks that “America’s real enemies have learned an important lesson: namely, that U.S. military power can only be effectively opposed by employing mass destruction weapons at the outset of a conflict,” yet he fails to grasp two significant things: 1. The conflict is still in motion in Iraq. And, 2. The use of such weapons might have even greater symbolic power for Islamofascists if used at the very moment of Infidel victories.

I recall reading the remarks of a Russian officer that choppered into the remains of an Afghanistan village as mop-up action was taking place. He spoke to a few survivors and surveyed the miserable conditions they lived under. He noted that most mud huts held only a pot and a copy of the Koran. He asked an old man what they hell was wrong with them that prevented them from wanting a better life. The old man replied that the Russian saw life as something precious and that the Muslim, in fact, embraced death and sought it.

To his credit, the author keeps the significance of NBC weapons front and center - as it should be. In my mind, the real victory here will be if there is not use of WMD's. In fact, I view the operations we undertake in the war in terror to be totally lacking if they do not include the assumed use of NBC weaponry in their core doctrines of battlefield order.

With each regime that is toppled, the treat level will rise for every remaining tyrant, despot and monster. Many killers throughout the world hate this country and have no compunction about killing personally or en mass. The trouble we have in comprehending this threat is that we constantly refer to our Judeo-Christian notions of culture and assume that bullies need to be stood up to and, sometimes, thrashed and they will topple like a house of cards. This has been true for much of our collective Western history, but it is NOT a constant.

We have had hints of this in the past. In WWII, there was a distinct difference in combat operations between the Pacific and the European theaters. To revisionists, the distinction has been alluded to as racism, but the veteran and tactician, the difference was that the Nazis would come again to fight another day in addition to being suffused at the trooper level with common ethical beliefs. Even thought they represented a bigger immediate threat and needed to be dealt with first, there were essential commonalties between the combatants. In the Pacific, however, the common cultural threads (however tenuous) were absent. The fighting was on another level entirely.

In my view, the Western heritage of compassion and forgiveness that flows from our deepest Judeo-Christian values are the very stumbling blocks that blind us from comprehending the operational doctrines of Islamofascism and, too often, block the correct analysis that must underlay a successful campaign that will destroy the threat and secure some reliable level of peace for the next generation or two. The characteristic altruism of America and its inability to truly see the danger until it is upon us is the primary threat to American survival.

In the war on terror, in particular, this is of the greatest importance because these wars must be continued from this point forward until some level of secure global dominance is achieved. Like President Bush said, this is going to be a long, long process. A single war against a developing country, or two, will not settle the issue. In fact, if Bush wins a second term and pursues this policy, it will still be far from settled. The need (and cost) to extinguish the amorphous nature of terror in its current embodiment of Islamofascism is, unfortunately, lost on most Americans and even more horrible, on many of our “leaders.” The failure of GB I to finish Saddam in GW I is evidence of this failure. At the time, I was foaming at the mouth because our 'leadership’ could not, or would not, pursue the needed cure to its logical conclusions. Today’s conflict is directly due to that lack of political will.

If the immediacy of Islamic nuclear retaliation is lost on the body politic at large, then the will and popular imperative to establishing global empire and American domination is even farther removed from the public consciousness. At some level, this idea is active in the politics of our Leftist enemies already; the issue is that they see the need for America to submit to global governance. Middle-Americans and those of casual politics need to be informed and on-board for the new realities of American hegemony. This is the major second threat to American survival.

As the author notes, “Killing 3,000 persons and destroying two large buildings only served to stir the sleeping giant into action.” Admiral Yamamoto correctly made this observation of an America that was resolved and unified against Japan. Americans put down their hammers, plows and pencils for the rifle and set out to finish the job the Japanese had started. Today, against the Islamofascists, I have grave reservations whether or not we truly understand the scope of our enemies, the depth of their evil or the duration that victory in such a conflict will entail.