Posted on 09/15/2001 2:21:55 PM PDT by Mel Gibson
September 12, 2001
WASHINGTON--This is not crime. This is war. One of the reasons there are terrorists out there capable and audacious enough to carry out the deadliest attack on the United States in its history is that, while they have declared war on us, we have in the past responded (with the exception of a few useless cruise missile attacks on empty tents in the desert) by issuing subpoenas.
Secretary of State Colin Powell's first reaction to the day of infamy was to pledge to ``bring those responsible to justice.''
This is exactly wrong. Franklin Roosevelt did not respond to Pearl Harbor by pledging to bring the commander of Japanese naval aviation to justice. He pledged to bring Japan to its knees.
You bring criminals to justice; you rain destruction on combatants. This is a fundamental distinction that can no longer be avoided. The bombings of September 11, 2001, must mark a turning point. War was long ago declared on us. Until we declare war in return, we will have thousands of more innocent victims.
We no longer have to search for a name for the post-Cold War era. It will henceforth be known as the age of terrorism. Organized terror has shown what it can do: execute the single greatest massacre in American history, shut down the greatest power on the globe, and send its leaders into underground shelters. All this, without even resorting to chemical, biological or nuclear weapons of mass destruction.
This is a formidable enemy. To dismiss it as a bunch of cowards perpetrating senseless acts of violence is complacent nonsense. People willing to kill thousands of innocents while they kill themselves are not cowards. They are deadly, vicious warriors and need to be treated as such. Nor are their acts of violence senseless. They have a very specific aim. To avenge alleged historical wrongs and to bring the great American satan to its knees.
Nor is the enemy faceless or mysterious. We do not know for sure who gave the final order but we know what movement it comes from. The enemy has identified itself in public and openly. Our delicate sensibilities have prevented us from pronouncing its name.
Its name is radical Islam. Not Islam as practiced peacefully by millions of the faithful around the world. But a specific fringe political movement, dedicated to imposing its fanatical ideology its own societies and destroying the society of its enemies, the greatest of which is the United States.
Israel, too, is an affront to radical Islam, and thus of course must be eradicated. But it is the smallest of fish. The heart of the beast--with its military in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey and Persian Gulf; with a culture that ``corrupts'' Islamic youth; with an economy and technology that dominates the world--is the United States. That is why we were struck so savagely.
How do we know? Who else trains cadres of fanatical suicide murderers who go to their deaths joyfully. And the average terrorist does not coordinate four hijackings within one hour. Nor fly a plane into the tiny silhouette of a single building. For that you need skilled pilots seeking martyrdom. That is not a large pool to draw from.
These are the shock troops of the enemy. And the enemy has many branches. Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Israel, the Osama bin Laden organization headquartered in Afghanistan, and various Arab ``liberation fronts'' based in Damascus. And then there are the governments: Iran, Iraq, Syria and Libya among them. Which one was responsible? We will find out soon enough.
But when we do, there should be no talk of bringing these people to ``swift justice,'' as Karen Hughes dismayingly promised mid-afternoon Tuesday. An open act of war demands a military response, not a judicial one.
Military response against whom? It is absurd to make war on the individuals who send these people. The terrorists cannot exist in a vacuum. They need a territorial base of sovereign protection. For 30 years we have avoided this truth. If bin Laden was behind this, then Afghanistan is our enemy. (BEG ITAL)Any country that harbors and protects him is our enemy. We must carry (BEG ITAL)their war to them.
We should seriously consider a congressional declaration of war. That convention seems quaint, unused since World War II. But there are two virtues to declaring war: It announces our seriousness both to our people and to the enemy, and it gives us certain rights as belligerents (of blockade, for example).
The ``long peace'' is over. We sought this war no more than we sought war with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan or cold war with the Soviet Union. But when war was pressed upon the greatest generation, it rose to the challenge. The question is: Will we?
The fact that we stopped before going to Baghdad is because we weren't there to "nation destroy and rebuild." We were there to eject Iraq, destroy Iraq's capability to wage further war and restore the political borders. We did that.
Had we kept going you would have found an army in isolation on the battlefield as the coalition dissolved and then you would have seen monumental casualties as we tried to fight our way out. And I gotta tell you, there wasn't much left in the reserve to come help had the war gone on longer or escalated over all of Iraq.
Also, the fact that the American people put in office-twice-a piece of shit of an excuse for a man hasn't helped the situation there or anywhere else.
So, unless you have some brilliant, saving grace methods and solutions to fix the problem that no one else at the Cabinet level has-shut the hell up- and trust the fact that Dubya has his full confidence to do what needs to be done.
Right - We create monsters and now must kill them.
Look we can't go bombing and stationing troops all over the world without expecting retaliation. Yes it's a Pearl Harbor again and we were surprised. We were also surprised at the Bulge, Yalu(?) River, Tet, Lebanon. We are like a football team that doesn't expect the other side to try to score.
I don't know if Powell is wrong or not but with a US budget policy of 'one war at a time' how much will the USA have to expend in cost and people for what indefinite future. It is easy to get in - Powell always looked for the exit strategy, maybe he is looking at our resources. What is Krauthammer's exit strategy - unconditional surrender and disarnament of all Arab states?
Russia is still on the scene and China is waiting to pick up the pieces. If the President and Congress decides we are the The World's Army of One, then let's triple the military budget, start up the draft and prepare to go the way of England. Maybe Powell isn't wrong.
http://frontpagemag.com/columnists/yeagley/2001/dy09-14-01.htm
For about 12 hours one Sunday morning, it looked like Saddan had fled and his government was going down. Leslie Stahl in her Sunday AM show grilled and derided Dan Quayle for having driven out Saddam and thus having an ungovernable and dangerous mess on our hands! And I remember it well. Somebody should look up the transcript.
Krauthammer is right about the stupidity of the concept and mindset of bringing the perpitrators to justice.
The only way to fight terrorism said Von Clauswitz was to see to it that 10 of the enemy died for every life taken by terror. And that those suffering terror have no time to be fussy about who's who among the terrorists. And this must be done from the top, not in anger but with cold calculation.
While I almost always like his work, he really needs to calm down on this. I can assure you that the terming bringing to justice has two different meanings to a law enforcement agency and to the military. GENERAL Powell is not a retired cop.
I fear you are correct. Nuclear fallout would hurt our allies in the region, so I hope it doesn't come to that. But, what are our lives worth if we cave in to these people? We must all hope and pray to God that the MAD minute isn't necessary.
I wrote a longer rant about this at A Tack Toward Appeasement.
Speaking of Israel, would anyone care to speculate on how the American people would react if the Israeli government asked us to "show restraint" and "stop the cycle of violence?" That is how our State Department wanted (and still wants) them to deal with terrorism.
The Brits were furious about the cease-fire. So were the Saudis, Qataris (I can vouch for this personally, since I was in the area on the ground) and other Arab Gulf countries. In fact, British Gulf commander Gen. Sir Peter de la Billiere went "ballistic" and British Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd--who happened to be in Washington--jumped Bush about it immediately, unfortunately to no avail.
Of all of the White House "High Command," mentioned in the initial article only one reportedly thought the war was ending too soon for the right reason and said so: Dan Quayle
Had the Republican Guard and its equipment been finally captured or destroyed, the Shiite rebellion in the south would probably have succeeded. Combined with the simultaneous Kurdish insurrection in the north, it is highly likely that Saddam would have chosen to take a hike and would not be a problem today. Had that happened, thousands of civilian lives would have been spared.
Saddam's survival has led to the continuation of UN sanctions on Iraq. These have greviously persecuted a population that is powerless to overthrow a tyrant that the U.S. allowed to stay in power. Pre-Gulf War, this population greatly admired America and Americans. You can imagine their opinions today.
Finally, our present dilemma would damn sure have not developed in World War II, the last conflict this country and its Allies fought to win total victory--which, after all, was always the goal of any war until politicians and "military managers" like Colin Powell got involved in day-to-day decisions.
If you are going to strike at a "King", you have to kill him
Nope. It's a sign that the U.S. Government doesn't want the children quarreling while we're taking care of business.
No declaration, no rules.
Now, I wish they would stop saying the perps be "punished," and start sying "destroyed."
Oops. I went ebonic there for a second. That should read, "the perps would be 'punished.'"
I must unfortunately agree with you. Our State Department IMHO thinks very weirdly. I used to think it was good that we stopped after "highway of death", so we wouldn't be perceived as just a bunch of Arab-killers. The whine at the time was that Iran would then have become the regional power. In retrospect, SO WHAT?! If Iran then misbehaved, go in and pound them too! Notice how USA always has its "designated villains"? It used to be Saddam Saddam Saddam, now it's Laden Laden Laden. Are we all a bunch of idiots, being played like a piano, by our own government/media complex? The only real solution, if our government really wants one, is to get ALL of them everywhere. ALL of the militant leaders and their minions. Khaddafi, Arafat, Saddam, bin Laden, etc. etc. Will we do it? Or must we have our "designated villains" for some stupid reason? Sheesh!
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.