Posts Tagged ‘war
And that’s what leads me to believe that the world is chuck-full of anti-Semites. They want to believe Israel commits war crimes. They suck it up like tapioca. It used to be that non-Western countries believed everything propagandists told them. Well, now it’s the West that likes fairy tales.
Has anybody remembered that Hamas is listed by the European Union and the United States government as being a terrorist organization? Forbid to think that terrorist organizations would commit war crimes. That a terror group would repeatedly violate the Geneva Convention. Oh–but that’s ok, because it’s not us. The Palestinians have made their choice. They chose unwisely–yet again.
It’s starting to look more and more like Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World everyday.
It seems it is now time to tell people, in the plainest of language exactly what I think and I why I think it. It’s best to arm one’s self with aforethought when entering the culture war. So here is the Realist’s Manifesto. Part I
“What if a symptom of regression lurked in the “good,” likewise a danger, a seduction, a poison, a narcotic, through which the present lived at the expense of the future? Perhaps more comfortably, less dangerously, but at the same time in a meaner style, more basely? — So that morality itself were to blame if the highest power and splendor possible to the type man was never in fact attained? So that morality itself was the danger of dangers?” ~Nietzsche, The Genealogy of Morals
The world upon which man is birthed and carries out his life as best he can is one of immense beauty and near infinite complexity. Hard and rigid beliefs constrict men and societies until they are honor-bound to obey the subliminal laws of culture. Culture is formed from a myriad of factors, not the least of which are religion, available natural resources, other nearby cultures and historic ideological figures. In a word, culture is everything, and men die because of it, for it– and without it. Men need culture and will always seek it.
The oldest cultures in history were wandering tribesmen. They formed their own micro-societies, moving about to secure food and shelter. Their leader was doubtless the man who was strongest, fastest, and most willing to shed blood. He was a man to be feared and respected, because if one would follow him, one could find what was needed to feed family and to protect life from other wandering tribes. The ancient wandering tribesman had the advantage of making his own mythology from his limited perceptions of the world around him. He was not told by the likes of today’s talking heads how the world should be observed. Though he was limited in his ability to determine causality, he never lacked the ability to see phenomena clearly, he never denied seeing what he was seeing. Indeed, his vision was much clearer than ours because he knew that the Law of the Jungle was unalterable and easily observed. The strong survive. Morality melts before the sword of the unjust. So the just must take up their own sword…
Even those that deny Kipling’s Law of the Jungle with their words, live under the power of that same law everyday. It is too easy to condemn one who uses strength and power to protect himself. It is arrogance and pernicious criticism. Few are willing to die for ideological pacifism. And one could suspect that even those who are willing, do so in penultimate stubbornness, bearing death before the humility of admitting one wants to live.
Morality only guides the just, but it cannot protect from the unjust. To the reaver, the thief, the tyrant, morality is the great enabler of his crimes leaving gaps in the victim’s defenses. And it can never be moral to die in a gutter to a robber, to leave behind fatherless children because of the aggressions of a maniac, or to accept psychological destruction at the hands of a rapist. So the Realist’s morality leaves no gaps. The aggressor sets the rules of the deadly game. It is a game we are willing to at least try to win, because this life is what we desire. We do not give into death and destruction merely as a means of displaying our nobleness. Most of all though, the Realist knows that there is evil in the world. He knows what that evil looks like, and he is never afraid to point out the evil, which seeks to hide amidst subtle words and clever lies. This evil often resembles the person who blames a rape victim for her defilement on the fact that her slip was showing. Heads deserved severing when Muhammad’s image or name is defiled. This is the type of evil the Realist plainly sees and without telling himself comforting lies, aggressively attempts to destroy.
Next: Part II
They drove returning Vietnam vets from the lighted areas, forcing them to hold court for decades, only with those who shared their experience. The ”Make Love Not War” movement warped the reality of the world, twisting it into blissful visions of half-naked, twirling children of Aquarius who believed they’d caught a glimpse of a reality truer than this one, while chasing White Rabbits and living on Lisurgic Acid.
A generation of our young men returned from Saigon to find a country that had abandoned them and labeled them baby-killers. It was great fun for the Aquarians, the feeling of utter self-righteousness. They’d taken up their cause, not for America, not to protect our soldiers, but for themselves. They didn’t like this world, because they’d refused to accept that life is pain. So they quelled the pain that is so obvious, with drugs and feelings of ideological superiority, trashing cities, rioting, lighting fires, committing acts of terrorism against federal institutions–all in the name of peace.
These folks are still around to some measure, though much less animated. Blogs allow them to vent. But in many ways they’re the same, in that the refuse to see the world as it is, and how it will always be. By their hyperbolic rhetoric and impossible demands, they paralyze even the candidates they put in office. Or their demands are so preposterous, that no party would make their ideologies part of the party-line. Not for long anyways.
By transposing their fantastic views of how the world should be, over the reality of how it really is, the Peace Monger increases suffering. He breaks bread with mass-murderers, if only to prove his world-views are real. The hateful rhetoric and mantric labels (fascist, baby-killer, War Monger) bears no relation to history. Paul Wolfowitz, for example, in the beginnings of the Iraq War was met by howling crowds calling him a Nazi or Fascist. None of these Neo-Aquarians knew probably, that almost all of Wolfowitz’ family died in the holocaust.
The Aquarians are about to take a huge blow. Obama’s election has no doubt quelled some of the animus. But when realities set in, and US troops are shipped overseas to do the killing that sometimes needs to be done, the Golden Boy will tarnish like metals of the ancient warrior: Iron and bronze.
Muffling the screams of the Israeli jet engines over Gaza , protests decrying the Israeli response to Hamas’ rocket attacks as not proportionate, now fill the air.
What some of these well-meaning activists don’t seem to consider, is the strategic necessity of disproportionate damage to an enemy’s war-fighting capabilities. When a country lends blood and treasure to fighting, that country’s leadership should have in mind exactly what it intends to accomplish. All military means must be brought to bear in order to see the political goals through. In the case of Israel ’s recent invasion of Gaza , the goal is clear: To put an end to Hamas’ rocket attacks, or more specifically, to stop the attacks by destroying as much of Hamas’ equipment and killing as many of its operatives as possible. The goal is not punishment, but .
When looking at historical wars, consider proportion. The more equally matched the opposing forces were, the longer and bloodier the fighting tended to be. As two equally matched wrestlers must expend all their energies so that the slightest advantage is gained, so in war does parity impel nations and armies to send more men to the thresher of battle.
A balance of power may well keep the peace, but if the peace is broken it is an oblique evil to intentionally limit your ability to win. Only those conveniently distant—either ideologically or geographically– from the battle, propose “ramping down” an army’s ability to defeat the enemy. It is in this holding back that men’s lives are thrown away for nothing, their blood spilled and nothing of value accomplished.
Shattering the myth of proportionate warfare’s morality, the stands in relevant and stark relief. Two armies of equal strength smashed themselves against one another for eight years. One million souls and half a trillion dollars later, the withered forces withdrew from a pointless fight. Iran and Iraq were not equal because they wanted to be. The countries cast everything into their fight. But to ask a soldier to intentionally make himself equal to his enemy, is to ask too much.
Israel must bring its to focus. It must ignore even the most well-meaning calls for proportion, while doing all it can to minimize civilian casualties. If it quits the fight before Hamas’ are destroyed, Israel will have only emboldened her enemies, wasted the lives of its soldiers and innocent Palestinian civilians, and resurrected the specter of its 2006 war with Hezbollah.
It appears that Israel has well-learned the lessons of 2006, when it waged war against Hezbollah in the streets of Lebanon.
Israeli leadership has steeled itself against the deluge of negative headlines and terrible (and oft-times faked) photos of what war really is. Hamas pushed too far, this time, hardening the will–the weapon-primus–of the Jewish state, and almost guaranteeing that Gaza’s people will be forced to choose a new government. This one is about to be smashed into a million pieces.
Hamas is scrambling for a cease-fire, but their bluff has been called. They’ve cheated one too many times, and now they teeter on extinction.
And what shall we see when Hamas meets its end? Will the protests against Israeli ”attrocities” get louder, shriller?
No. Because decisive victory is what silences the bored bloggers and politically distant sign-toters. There’ll be a deafening silence, just as there was when America quelled the Iraqi insurgency. We’ll hear the wind blowing, the leaves ruffling and the crickets creaking.
That is why there is no substitute for victory. Let future leaders learn from Iraq and Gaza. The best way to defeat enemies domestic and abroad is to calmly go about doing your business, knowing that there will always be dissent. And that the dissenters are in many cases those who would ask of others what they themselves would never consider doing themselves. If there were people across the street on which they lived, shooting at their house, the dissenters would call the police, who are endowed with the legal authority to use force to bring order and enforce the law. But when aggression takes place in far-off lands, the dissenter feels empowered to beg restraint–and then brings out the tired old accusations of fascism and attrocity if a state’s military is used to end aggression.
Despite our hopes and efforts, we are epochs away from hammering swords into plowshares.
Pax Americana is real, though. Industrial war is but a romantic memory, resolved for the time being, to lurk amongst the pages of high school history books and hour-long Discovery Channel shows. Millions of lives are saved for that.
Instead of the classic “couldron battles” of yesteryear, war is reduced to the simmer of a slow-cooker. No more massive tank clashes. No more dashing field marshalls with tactical brilliance. The true king of the battlefield will have to master cultural and mass psychology. How to control groups of people who are willing to kill and die over thousand year blood-feuds.
Under the leadership of men like Gen. David Patraeus, we’ve come a long way in learning to deal with insurgencies. But I’m not sure some future politicians will get it. In an article that I recently posted about Patraeus, one Democrat criticizes the surge, not for it’s effectiveness but because of its effectiveness. He states that because there was a huge reduction in violence after the surge, future administartions may be more apt to believe that problems can be solved with violence.
And he’s right. But it’s nothing to be ashamed about.
The myth that violence solves nothing has been smashed, its death celebrated in a hundred wars of ideology, land grabs and blood feuds. We can never afford though, to allow our enemies to know the truth–that violence works–while ourselves denying that same truth. Millions around the world, and throughout history have died or suffered the most horrible tortures because evil men knew that violence was an option, while the premise was denied by hopeful or just plain cowardly leaders and populace.
We must not elect men to office who tell us, that through policy, we can make the world an easy place to be. Easier, yes. But we can never avoid choosing. Not once.
Those that want isolationism seek to gain a moral high-ground with their rhetoric. They believe that America has done more damage than good in its foreign wars, especially recently. They misconstrue losing the wars, or those wars having no easily defined outcome, with the morality of fighting in the first place. I will grant, that states should always consider whether a war in winnable before entering into it. And obviously it is not right to throw away the lives of a nation’s soldiers in un-winnable wars.
But many of those arguments are made behind the veil of time, through which the evils of Soviet power remain blurred. Not only ideological evil, resulting in millions of executions and persecutions, but stupid economic evil too. Communism just doesn’t make money. So people starve and become slow, dumb, uncreative and in the end–unloving. Ask the women of old Soviet Russia what their men were like. Barbarians, that’s what. Lazy, drunkards whose wages were the same if they scrubbed toilets or performed bypasses. So corruption became the order of the day. It was the only way to get ahead, and it’s doomed modern Russia to be its slave.
I digress, as I’m prone.
We can not claim though, a moral high ground, when millions die and something can be done about it. Neither are we right when our own people face danger in the form of jihadists, zealots and cataclysmic madmen, but we choose to ignore them in hopes they’ll go away.
When governments ignore terrorism, at least the larger acts of it, it encourages the terrorist. As much as many of them claim to want martydom, the biological impulse to live remains. The idea of laser-guided bombs and efficient American troops raiding their layers, is frightening.
And yes, we must kill them.
We will have to deal with their propaganda and recruiting efforts after. But remember that for one who wants to hate, for one who feels empowered by his hate, there is always a reason to hate. Combining that hatred with a slight twist to the tenets of Islam will always bring armies of more haters.
So America must protect the populace in which the terrorist grows. We must show the people that we are not only using military force to protect America, but to protect them. In doing so, we again protect ourselves. We segregate the suicide bomber from his own people. Instead of the populace believing that the violence will stop if America just leaves, they must know that the violence will stop when the terroists are gone. When there are no more terror-schools.
In the end we must choose where we stand on American intervention abroad. This Iraq war did indeed carry on for far too long. But confusing it’s length with its rightness is a mistake.