-
Next: The Benghazi Select Committee
May 13, 2013 | 94 comments
-
Nobody Died in Watergate
May 9, 2013 | 145 comments
-
Benghazi Bullchips
May 6, 2013 | 184 comments
-
Obama’s Thin Red Line
April 29, 2013 | 207 comments
-
Why Has No One Taken Credit?
April 22, 2013 | 189 comments
Loose Canons
Bonfire of the Neocons, Part 2
Getting a grip on the nation-building delusion and the real sponsors of terror.
Call it nation-building, call it counterinsurgency, the neocon way of war is based on the antihistorical idea that the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq are capable of resolution within those nations’ borders. It willfully ignores the conclusive influence that the intervention of foreign terror-sponsoring nations has.
Many of us who supported military action in Afghanistan and Iraq weren’t neocons then, and by condemning nation-building now aren’t turning coat.
Literally from the moment the towers of the World Trade Center fell, I have written that the nations that sponsor terrorism are our enemy, and that we cannot win this war unless and until we force them out of that business.
On 9-11, I wrote a column that was published the following day in the Washington Times. In it, I said, “Nations that sponsor or harbor terrorists are our enemies. We have to treat them accordingly. We must act against them, using whatever force is necessary to destroy the threat.”
The only other people to cast the war in those terms were Michael Ledeen in his 2002 book, The War Against the Terror Masters, and retired Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Richard B. Myers in his 2009 book, Eyes on the Horizon. I am honored to be in that small company.
Unless our national leadership quickly joins us, the terror sponsors will win this war and America will cease to be the land of the free.
From the beginning, I have argued that this war is as much an ideological war as a kinetic one. And, with equal consistency, I have been opposed to nation-building.
In Loose Canons on April 30, 2002 I wrote that Bush’s thinking had become dangerously confused. On September 4, 2002, I wrote that even if we dealt with the terrorist threats in Afghanistan and Iraq, the war would not be over until we ended — forcibly or otherwise — nations’ sponsorship of terrorism. And, on March 20, 2006, in a Loose Canons piece entitled “Endgame Conservatives,” I explained comprehensively the problem with the neocons’ war plan, that it placed us on the strategic defensive and precluded victory.
I explained that nation-building is not “neoconservatism” but actually “neo-Wilsonianism.” That it is, at its core, a colonialist strategy bound to fail anywhere, not just in the Muslim world. That if you do not fight a war in a manner calculated to win it decisively, you will lose it inevitably.
It is immoral — and contrary to the nation’s security — to spend American lives in nation-building. In the Muslim culture it’s doubly so, because the religion prohibits democracy. Under sharia law, the separation of church and state is prohibited. The Koran prescribes a comprehensive law that encompasses both religion and government.
And that’s the point of failure at which neocon nation-building and the military idea of “counterinsurgency” merge.
The commander of the International Security Assistance Force for Afghanistan reports regularly to Congress. In the April 2010 report, there is little but bad news. The classic text, “Counterinsurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice” by the late David Galula, shows why the Bush-Obama nation-building strategy is failing in Iraq and Afghanistan. A few examples from the ISAF report and Galula’s work illustrate the problem.
Galula wrote that for an insurgent to succeed, he must have a cause — political, religious, economic or social — that the counterinsurgent cannot also espouse. The Taliban’s cause is the re-imposition of Islamic fundamentalism. It is already a dominant force in neighboring nations such as Iran and perhaps Pakistan. That cause is apparently succeeding in Afghanistan. The April ISAF report says, “[Taliban] organizational capabilities and operational reach are qualitatively and geographically expanding…. The strength and ability of [Taliban] shadow governance to discredit the authority and legitimacy of the Afghan Government is increasing.”
The Karzai government offers no cause that can seriously compete. Vague promises of democracy and economic development — made by an unpopular government seeking to bring the “good Taliban” into the fold — cannot compete with the undiluted Islamic fundamentalism the Taliban offer.
Galula wrote that support for an insurgency from other nations can take five forms. The Taliban receive them all. First, moral support “…by the weight of public opinion and through various communications media.” The Taliban receive it almost constantly in Islamic media and by word of mouth from the terror-sponsoring nations.
About the Author
Jed Babbin served as a Deputy Undersecretary of Defense under George H.W. Bush. He is the author of several bestselling books including Inside the Asylum and In the Words of Our Enemies. You can follow him on Twitter @jedbabbin.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (86) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Jed Babbin
More Articles From Loose Canons
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/08/03/bonfire-of-the-neocons-part-2
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Doug| 8.3.10 @ 6:25AM
If you had levelled Mecca in response to 9/11 do you think after the uproar had died down the terrorists and their government sponsors might think twice, they hit your big symbols you hit theirs twice as hard. Since they were Saudi citizens why is Saudi Arabia not forced to pay compensation such as a years oil production extorted by threat of force.
Harry the Horrible| 8.3.10 @ 9:30AM
If you leveled Mecca in response to 9/11, you would have essentially declared war on the Muslims of the entire world - over a billion people, including a million or more in the US (you would have also cut us off from ME oil...).
Not that I don't think we could take them if we had the intestinal fortitude, but we're talking a WWII type effort, with many millions of dead (mostly "civilians") on the part of the Muzzies and hundreds of thousands of casualties on our part.
Not to mention, the ballless gorms who run the UN and nations in the rest of the world might line up against us. The PRC and the Sov, er, Russians, would see this an a heck of an opportunity.
We could reduce 'em to ruins and substantially reduce their population, but would it be worth it? You decide...
Conan the Contrarian| 8.3.10 @ 12:26PM
Worth it, definitely. Carthago delenda est. Did I spell that right?
jaytrain| 8.3.10 @ 12:31PM
Yup ! and might I add "Deus Volt ! "
loulou| 8.3.10 @ 12:33PM
We already ARE at war with the Muslim world--the pantywaists in Washington just don't realize it yet.
The only thing primitive types like Muslims understand is force. Anything less is viewed as weakness and licence to continue their murderous ways.
At any rate, the moment has passed. Bush could have blasted them after 9/11 but instead he blathered on about Islam being a religion of peace whilst holding hands with one of the sheiks. And what do we have now? A mega mosque on the site of their greatest attack on us.
Mark James| 8.4.10 @ 12:44PM
Mecca didn't attack us and neither did "the Muslim world" as Babbin intimates we were attacked by proxies of our global enemies namely Syria, Hamas, Iran, and generous portions of Pakistan, Saudi Arabis etc.
The dictatorial, power mad governments are our enemies, they are simply using radical elements within their midst to attack us.
Oil money is the big factor here. It gave far too much power to a bunch of backwards goat herders who have let this sudden power and wealth go to their heads. They have deluded themselves into believing this was God's way of encouraging them to start WWIII to usher in the take over of the world by their religion. Stop these countries by cutting off their income, thereby putting the rest of them on notice we will do what ever is required, and the whole thing changes direction.
Peter| 8.3.10 @ 7:28AM
I'm with Jeb. No nation building.
Alan Brooks| 8.3.10 @ 9:52AM
Afghanistan has no foundation on which to build a nation.
As Rush has said, "you can only bomb Afghanistan UP to the stone age."
loulou| 8.3.10 @ 12:34PM
I too am with Jeb.
Let's cut our losses and leave that barbaric hellhole. Now.
JP| 8.3.10 @ 7:40AM
I'm not sure what Jed Babbin's point is here. Gaula's work also inspired General Petraeous to write his manual in dealing with counter-insurgencies. And General Petraeous, like McCrhystal is a nation-builder par excellence.
I do agree with Babbin concerning nation-building, especially as it pertains to Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a not a nation as much as it is a collection of various tribes. And those tribes have histories that go back a thousand years or more. Our mistake wasn't elevating Karazai (he, after-all was the leader of choice of the old Northern Alliance), but giving him the aura of democratic legitimacy. We would have been better off arming his followers, and offering him special operations support.
Michael Ledeen pointed out back in 2001 and 2002 that Iran is the nexus for most of the voilent radicalism. He openly advised President Bush to begin both an overt and covert operation to topple the regime in Iran in much the same way we worked to undermine the USSR in the 1980s. His advice was ignored, of course. And all through the years 2003-present Iranian special forces work with agressively to put in place the kind of regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq that will support thier brand of revolution.
Siegfried X| 8.3.10 @ 7:48AM
This article is total nonsense. First, it pretends that counter-insurgency fighting is "nation building", which is not true. Then it pretends that we can avoid guerilla fighting entirely by fighting a WWII conventional war against the guerilla "sponsors". That is total nonsense.
For example the Taliban are a local group, who would still be there even if Iran ceased to exist.
Babbin is a neo-con, and he wants the same thing that bin Laden does: a holy war between Christianity and Islam. That is nonsense, which the Republican Party will ignore.
Babbin apparently doesn't have the stomach for a long, tough anti-insurgent war. Thankfully, our military is tough, unlike Babbin, and we will win all those wars.
Ryan| 8.3.10 @ 8:21AM
I think that there may be some solution in-between. The current regime in Iran needs to be removed, and there are elements there that may be conducive to democracy - or at least something less adversarial to American interests.
JB also doesn't address one historical fact that promotes some aspects of nation-building - democracies do not wage offensive wars against each other.
S. Ruger| 8.3.10 @ 10:54AM
Siegfried X, you say you're for "a long, tough anti-insurgent war." My question is, what defines the successful conclusion of such a war? Would it be something like a rebuilt nation? Something that is the goal of nation building? Sounds like a wonderful conclusion, but what level of force would be required to achieve and maintain it?
BTW, I didn't infer from JB's article that he advocates a WWII style approach, but a much more targeted effort based on short-term actions. I may be missing something, but your suggestion sounds more like the slow slog through Europe that drove the Nazis out (though we had a lot more to build on there than we do in Afghanistan).
Siegfried X| 8.3.10 @ 11:20AM
The war ends when the insurgents are either dead or have surrendered. The goal is to have a working government which can provide law & order. Rebuilding the country is not necessary in order to do that; many poor countries have stable governments.
Guerilla fighting is a military occupation and pacification operation, much like what happens after a conventional war is concluded. The main difference in guerilla fighting is that a well organized group of rebels has chosen to blend in with the population and fight with unconventional means. Tactics like preventing sabotage of civilian infrastructure are used in all military occupations, not just anti-insurgent fighting.
We didn't have to rebuild Iraq in order to win. Rather, after being beaten by the Shiites, the Sunnis turned against Al Qaeda. Once we had the cooperation of the Sunnis, Al Qaeda was quickly cleaned up. That was warfare, not nation building.
S. Ruger| 8.3.10 @ 11:49AM
OK, I see better what you're saying. The confusion may relate to the definition of "nation building." Establishing an entity to which the insurgents would surrender is what many mean by nation building (not repairing infrastructure or an entire economy). We did indeed do something similar in Iraq -- we helped establish a government that controls the nation to a large extent via security and military forces. This was far easier to do in Iraq, which previously had a well-established central government. The trouble will come when we leave either Iraq or Afghanistan.
Siegfried X| 8.3.10 @ 12:02PM
I don't understand how anyone could be opposed to trying to find a stable government to replace our occupation forces. We did it after World War II, and most Americans would have been outraged if we just walked away and let anti-US Japanese or Germans take over their governments again.
Any winning military is going to want to turn the keys over to a friendly government, not the enemy which they just beat.
S. Ruger| 8.3.10 @ 12:25PM
Oh, sure, it sounds great to do this. If we were willing to pay the price in funds and flesh, I'd be right on it. But there's basically no chance of raising a large enough force (many times what we have have there now) and maintaining it for the years it would take to establish the friendly government and keep it in power (much harder than after WWII). That's one of the main issues many of us have with the approach.... But I admit you have the moral high ground!
Louis Jenkins| 8.3.10 @ 8:29AM
On 9-11, I wrote a column that was published the following day in the Washington Times. In it, I said, "Nations that sponsor or harbor terrorists are our enemies. We have to treat them accordingly. We must act against them, using whatever force is necessary to destroy the threat."
That is correct. But the USA doesn't have the rocks to do just that. Better to bring the troops home. We've funded an Afgahn war and funded the Pakistanis, who apparently have succored Al Quada and the Taliban. Now there's a riddle for you.
Melvin| 8.3.10 @ 8:56AM
People, they have already won, we just don't acknowledge it yet.
They won when they nationalized their oil wells and we became addicted after the first barrel of crude oil.
They enemy infests our government at all levels through graft and corruption. They influence elections, they influence who runs for these elections.
The filthy lucre of Arab oil money flows through the Legislative and Executive branches like pipelines filled with black gold. To be sure, Shekels also fill nondescript envelopes as well. But that isn't the discussion right now.
Like it or not, this war on terrorism in my opinion will not be won until we destroy the fountainhead of where it first burbled out of the sands of the Mideast. For it is Mecca and will always be Mecca the fountainhead and strength of the Wahhabis. If Western Nations defeat the Wahhabi, they will defeat terrorism.
Western Nations may or not want to defeat Islam, but can create conditions to cause Islam to turn on the Wahhabi.
We are utter damn fools if we think that for one moment that the Mosque at Ground Zero is for healing. Think about it. The towers that symbolized American pride and industry is destroyed and scattered to the four winds. The Mosque will rise and dominate, and domination is the "Finis Coronat Opus", The end crowns the work.
C Bowen| 8.3.10 @ 9:14AM
Babbin was duped, at best, into believing Iraq had a WMD arsenal that was a threat to national security and he is still posting on the topic of defense?
Has he no shame?
Ken (Old Texican)| 8.3.10 @ 9:27AM
C. Bowen,
You guys just keep pushing that old canard, in spite of the tons and tons of yellow-cake shipped quietly to Canada, don'tcha' ?
Or the thousands of tons of "precurser" chemicals in and around the mobile labs? Iraq under Saddam didn't have an insect in the fields problem, doofus.
What dorks!
C Bowen| 8.3.10 @ 10:04AM
Tin foil hat conspiracy theories are not a sound basis for national defense strategy. Granted, you may well have been scared of Saddam's Winnebagos of Death and Flying Drones of Doom, but perhaps you scare easy?
Bydand76| 8.3.10 @ 10:57AM
Right, C Bowen.
and tell BS to me and the guys who found all the crap (toxic nerve agents) that the Iraqis had in storage facilities across the Diyala province.
Oh yeah, and the nerve gas IED's they ( the insurgents) tried popping on us were just made up as well.
Tell that to my LT who got scarred for life because he got hit with that garbage!
See. The sad fact of the matter is that Saddam DID have WMD's. I know because I saw and fought against the guys who tried to use them on us. Not to mention the fact that pretty much every single intelligence agency on the planet thought his (Saddams) capabilities were vastly greater than what they were. You will never see that in the media though will you? What was that about conspiracies?
Tell you what though. You can go up to Kurdistan yourself and see the effects if you really want to! The Kurdish people are more than willing to show you what Saddam did!
My guess is you will not do that though. Too many tin-foil hat conspiracies abound right?
Pro Libertate!
South Texan| 8.3.10 @ 11:41AM
Chemical weapons are not weapons of mass destruction. They are very difficult to deploy and mostly ineffective on a battlefield. If you believe all the lies from the Bush government you will believe anything. Since Saddam had them as you claim and attempted to use them, why didn't he win? Saddam was acting as a deterrent to Iran and we destroyed him. How smart was that?
Ken (Old Texican)| 8.3.10 @ 11:50AM
South Texan,
You embarrass we fellow Texans with your stuck on stupid remarks here.
WMD= chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.
...Period!
On second thought...just stay stupid. You give we adults a chuckle.
Don H| 8.3.10 @ 10:05PM
We're stuck on "Stuck on stupid" today aren't we OT? Hmmm. I completely agree with you even though you come across as a jackass.
And no, that's not alright. We conservatives can be frank but civil.
Mike Cole| 8.4.10 @ 1:01AM
Being "civil" and "noble" are the two reasons why the liberals have had their way with us and will continue to do so.
Ole Texican is representative of the real Americans and what it will take to keep this country from being Mecca-West
Red Phillips | 8.3.10 @ 12:41PM
Chemical weapons are most effective in the fear they produce and the paralysis they cause when people are suited up in chem gear in response, which is substantial, not their actual effectiveness as a battlefield weapon.
Bydand76| 8.3.10 @ 1:30PM
Red,
Chemical/Bilogical weapon are extremely effective once employed.
American Doctrine assumes a casualty rate of over 75% for any unit that has been attacked with a chemical or biological agent. Depending on early warning systems, method of delivery, and the type of agent.
Doctrine also states that the combat effectiveness of a unit that has had a chemical or biological agent targeted against it, is severly retarded due to the fact that the unit will be unable to continue once the agent has been employed as it attempts to deal with the effects of the agent on personel and equipment. There-by rendering it mission-incapable.
The risk managment level is catastrophic!
My unit spends a considerable amount of time training for a chemical/biological enviroment and part of qualifying with our assigned weapons is in or protective gear. (MOPP level 2 or higher)
Not to mention the whole terrain denial aspect of using these kind of weapons but I think you get my point.
Pro Libertate!
Red Phillips | 8.3.10 @ 2:20PM
"Doctrine also states that the combat effectiveness of a unit that has had a chemical or biological agent targeted against it, is severely retarded due to the fact that the unit will be unable to continue once the agent has been employed as it attempts to deal with the effects of the agent on personnel and equipment. There-by rendering it mission-incapable."
Bydand76, read what I wrote again. I am basically saying what you said above. There are delivery and disbursement issue with chemical weapons that have a lot to do with factors like the weather, wind, etc. that limits there effectiveness as agents of death. As well as modern detection sytems. Their primary effectiveness as weapons of war is in rendering a unit "mission-incapable" as you said. I was in the military and drilled in MOPP gear routinely. You can barely breathe in the full gear, much less carry on your actual job.
I would disagree with the idea that a potentially hostile nation “might” have chemical weapons constitutes a just cause for war. According to Christian Just War doctrine, this would be preemptive war at best, but more accurately preventative war. This is forbidden by Christian Just War doctrine. You can’t kill people “just to be on the safe side.”
Bydand76| 8.3.10 @ 2:59PM
Red,
Yes, I agree with you. Yes, I know that you are agreeing with me as well. What I was pointing out is that Chem/Bio weapons are catastrophic in their application. That's all
I agree with you when you say that simply possesion of any type of "WMD" is a clear and present danger, to be cliche, however it is what that nation intends to do with said weapon that constitutes the hostile intent. That is a very dangerous argument situation as you are then having to guess you enemy's intent.
Although, that is not a very convincing argument either to be honest.
look at North Korea.
And yes MOPP gear is a hateful thing indeed!
Pro Libertate!
Bydand76| 8.3.10 @ 12:55PM
Riiiiight.
Ok Joe Snuffy from S. Texas,
Read above comments and understand what I was saying before commenting please.
Saddam did not use all of his capabilities because he was afraid of our response to said weapons. He thought the war was going to end the same way as the previous one had. Up to the point where the 3rd ID did the Thunder Run into Baghdad, Saddam had no clue how severe his situation really was!
The INSURGENTS did in fact use them or tried to at least on several occasions. Where the F did they get them from?
My unit found on three different occasions chemical agent manufacturing sites but the embedded reporters who were with us could have cared less. Kind of narrows it down now doesn't it sparky?!
"They are very difficult to deploy and mostly ineffective on a battlefield"
This moronic comment shows your complete ignorance of the subject matter. Someone is feeding you a line of garbage friend! You have no clue what you are talking about dude!
If they are so ineffective then why is American doctrine to train against their usage and it is mandatory to carry a gas mask as part of your PPE/PPG?? I guess all those years I spent training for operating in a chemical enviroment were just more wasted taxpayer money right? Not to mention going through the gas chamber everytime I have been deployed!
Chemical weapons are very easy to deploy via Artillery or Aerosol platforms. Ask the Kurdish people if you don't believe me!
You are correct in your statement that Saddam was a deterrent to Iran. So what? The real question you have to ask yourself is what the hell scared us so bad that we felt we needed to go to war with Iraq over it?
I am sure someone of your vast metal acumen will be able to enlighten us!
Pro Libertate!
William R| 8.3.10 @ 1:24PM
"The real question you have to ask yourself is what the hell scared us so bad that we felt we needed to go to war with Iraq over it? "
Nothing. The Iraq war was about remaking the Middle East into liberal Democratic states, thus they'd be tolerant of Israel. Democracies don't fight each other.
Bydand76| 8.3.10 @ 2:41PM
Oh Lord!
Not this debate again!
Pro Libertate!
Cpm| 8.3.10 @ 1:53PM
And what the hell made Saddam a deterrent to Iran? The threat of WMDs. See, they believed Saddam had them too. Good post.
Grzmlyk| 8.4.10 @ 1:10PM
bydand76, first of all, your service is much appreciated.
I get annoyed sometimes when conservatives reflexively say that because it sounds like it's just a pro-forma exercise in "being sensitive to our troops," something every good conservative must say to prove his bona fides.
But the truth is, it's guys like you - who increasingly have to fight for an America that would just as soon our army were emasculated and turned into a giant community outreach program - who represent the last bastion of the American spirit. Not to mention the sacrifice, courage and selflessness your service represents. All of the things liberals pretend they stand for.
Second, your expertise on the topic of WMD is irrelevant to liberals like Snuffy. See, guys like him were BORN better than you. They simply know more than you do by virtue of their superior liberal minds.
So what if you've been there and know what you're talking about? South Texan has theories, born in left-wing think tanks and nourished in the echo chambers of odious web sites like the maintstream media, Huffington Post and Daily Kos, and those adorable little theories just sound so darn smart as he rehearses them in front of his mirror.
Of course, how many armchair quarterbacks have one ounce of what it takes to make a single play in the NFL? Unfortunately, America's armchair quarterbacks now occupy every institution in this country - the media, academia, politics, pop culture. And they're monolithically foolish leftists who've fallen in love with that image they see in the mirror.
We are a nation of putative experts whose only show of courage is standing behind their academic theories in the face of the withering refutation of reality. And even that ain't courage; it's the cowardly bravado of the mob. Think cowards like South Texan or Keith Olbermann or Al Franken or Harry Reid would have any courage if they weren't backed up by an army of useless idiots and crooks standing behind them?
Just like economists like Paul Krugman know best about how to run businesses even though he's been an academic parasite his whole life.
Or elitist fools like Nancy Pelosi know best how best to spend the money earned by the sweat of the middle-class's brow even though she avoided all that unpleasantness by marrying a super-rich guy and then lucked into a fully corrupt position of power.
Or how angry, ignorant idelologue adolescents like Barack Obama know best how to put America back to work even though he's completely uninformed (don't spoil that ideology with facts!) and has never had a job that wasn't a cushy, affirmative action-enabled gig.
God forbid we have people who know what they're talking about take part in our national dialogue; it might make a liberal choke in her foie gras, and that's just tres gauche, don't you know.
C Bowen| 8.3.10 @ 12:03PM
You employ the term WMD like a liberal talking about "assault weapons." It's a political scare word designed for soccer moms. Again, a lousy basis for national security threat assessment.
America First, not last.
Bydand76| 8.3.10 @ 1:01PM
C Bowen,
What IS the basis for a good NSTA?
"Hope and Change" ?
Pro Libertate!
Red Phillips | 8.3.10 @ 2:07PM
Mr. Bowen is not an Obamaite if that is what you are implying. He is a non-interventionist conservative. It is telling that you seem to assume all opposition to big government interventionism comes from the left.
Bydand76| 8.3.10 @ 3:02PM
Red,
Not at all, I wasnt trying to imply anything it was mostly just a simple attempt at levity is all.
I guess it did not work.
Pro Libertate!
Red Phillips | 8.3.10 @ 12:36PM
"perhaps you scare easy"
Perpetual Chicken Little like fear is the foundation of interventionism. If we no longer have the Commies to fear, we must fear the Muslims. When fear of the Muslims no longer stirs the masses, we must fear resurgent Russia and China. Santorum tells us we even need to fear little ol' Venezuela. It would all be comic if it didn’t have such dreadful consequences. But yet the Chicken Little crowd pounds their chests and rattles their sabers and feels that somehow validates their masculinity. And all us non-interventionists are, of course, just a bunch of cowards masking our cowardliness with references to the Constitution, George Washington, the Old Right, authentic conservatism, etc. But I don’t go to bed at night fretting about Venezuela. So who exactly is the coward, and who is displaying manliness?
Bydand76| 8.3.10 @ 12:58PM
Red,
"Walk softly and carry a big stick"
At what point is the big stick a viable option?
Pro Libertate!
Red Phillips | 8.3.10 @ 2:03PM
Correctly determining whether or not you need to use a big stick depends on a proper assessment of the threat and a proper evaluation of the alternatives. Interventionists, whether neocons or Jed Babbinites, do neither. They presume threat and preemptively rule out alternatives to force.
oldpapajoe| 8.4.10 @ 8:34AM
Red,
You really need to read the Koran and the Hadith, two of Islam's most important works. Once you have read what a Muslim believes, you can see that there are two wars going on; The first is between so-called moderate Muslims and radical Islam (especially Wahabbi types), and the second, between radical Islam and the rest of the world. The heart of radical Islam is Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and their thousands of Madrassas that teach Wahabbi theology. READ THEIR BOOKS!!!! SEE WHAT THEY THINK IS IMPORTANT.
ncatty| 8.3.10 @ 9:59AM
Egads. Declare war on Iran and Syria. Then attack them with stealth weapons? If we are going to attack them then why not with nukes, gas, chemical weapons, biological weapons. Get the padded room ready for this guy.
Thomas| 8.3.10 @ 10:05AM
Two quick points.
The first one I made yesterday. Afghanistan did not attack the US. Other than the fact that Al Qaeda was based there and operated training camps there, which, evidence suggests, Osama Bin Laden was actually paying the Taliban government to allow, there was never any evidence that the government of Afghanistan was involved in the planning, funding or execution of the 9/11 attacks on America. The only reason that the United States attacked Afghanistan was to gain access to Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, after the Taliban government's refusal to hand him over to the US. Once Bin Laden had fled the country and the Taliban was largely overthrown, any interest that the US might have had in Afghanistan ceased to exist. Afghanistan provides no strategic advantage to the US and, because of the fact that it is totally land locked by countries that are inimical to the US [Iran for example] or could very easily become so [Pakistan], the logistics of supporting our troops there are tenuous at best. There was no reason, once our intelligence gathering concerning Al Qaeda wad completed, for the US to remain in that country. Governance should have been turned over to the Northern Alliance and we should have left.
Iraq was another story. Though there is no evidence that Iraq participated in any facet of the 9/11 attacks and was not allowing high ranking Al Qaeda members to reside there, it must be remembered that Iraq was still engaged in a war with the US. The 1991 Gulf War was never finished. No surrender was ever tendered or accepted and no armistice was ever signed. A cease fire had been in effect for twelve years and Saddam Hussein had repeated violated the terms of that cease fire. The 2003 invasion of Iraq was simply a continuation of the Gulf War. Added to that was the fact that the invasion of Iraq provided a strategic benefit for the US. That of location. High ranking US military leaders, as well as members of the civil government, have long recognized the fact that Iran is an expansionist state and has long been conducting a surrogate war against the US, Israel and the West. A future conflict with Iran is almost assured. Following the 9/11 attacks, it became evident that the security of US bases in the Gulf States was tenuous. The threat of attack was not overwhelming, but the continued acceptance of the bases on the soil of Saudi Arabia, and other Gulf States, was not something that could be counted upon. Iraq provided a much better place for US bases in the Middle East, both tactically and strategically. The allowance of self-governance in Iraq may have been a bit precipitous, but establishing some stability was necessary. And, an efficient democratic government usually provides for the most stability.
See, in these campaigns in the WOT, the objectives were different. One, Iraq, required the establishment of a stable government favorable to the United States and their goals in the region. The other, Afghanistan, only required the removal of the existing government, the Taliban, to allow access to Al Qaeda. There are times and situations where nation building is necessary. And times when it is neither necessary nor desirable. And this has to be recognized.
canuckistani| 8.3.10 @ 11:40AM
Correct me: did we ever declare war on Iraq? I thought it was a police action like Korea and Vietnam and Bosnia.
How could a war with Hussein be going on if one was never declared?
The more we abandon the constitution, the more we cede to forces that undermine the country. The enemy is us.
Red Phillips | 8.3.10 @ 12:45PM
"The 2003 invasion of Iraq was simply a continuation of the Gulf War."
This is not how that war was sold to the American people, and you know it. More historical revisionism.
Tom| 8.3.10 @ 1:11PM
Oh please. Congress as early as 1998 passed a joint resolution finding Iraq was in violation of the ceasefire agreement. It is one of the chief reasons cited in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.
Historical revisionism is failing ro remember the historical context in which Congress authorized Bush to invade Iraq. The inspection regime was falling about, economic sanctions were a joke, there was an international consensus that Iraq had WMD and was actively seeking atomic weapons. Whether the proper method of handling these issues was an invansion of Iraq is certainly debatable, that they existed is not.
Marine Vet| 8.3.10 @ 1:44PM
I knew it wasn't over in '91 when we got the cease-fire orders in Kuwait. Fighting a half-assed war never really accomplishes anything.
Thomas| 8.3.10 @ 3:21PM
No revisionism. There was no document that ended the Gulf War, period, exclamation point. If you can find one, please post a citation. As to declaring war, the Congress of the United States authorized the President to use force against Iraq in both 1991 and 2002. The reasons enumerated in 2002 resolution included violations of the terms of the 1991 cease fire. People can indulge in semantics all they want in an attempt to justify their position, but the facts speak for themselves.
Actually, justification for the 2003 invasion of Iraq was based upon several violations of the 1991 cease fire, including the targeting and firing upon US aircraft patrolling the No-Fly Zone. But, the only point that was ever trumpeted by the press was the possibility of the existence of WMD in-country, of which little was found.
I apologize for presenting an inconvenient truth.
Sean| 8.3.10 @ 10:14AM
We have two options.
1. Total war
2. Withdraw and secure our borders and restrict muslim immigration .
America has no stomach or leaders for number 1. If we do number 2 terrorism will never be a major problem for the US.
Thomas| 8.3.10 @ 10:23AM
While I find your choices unrealistically limited, #1 is, unfortunately, a possibility. Unfortunately, #2 is simply not a viable option. There is no way to "withdraw" inside our borders. Said borders simply do not exist in any meaningful way. It is possible to physically secure the borders from unauthorized ingress, but economically and socially that is simply not possible. And, whether you have an enemy sitting in your living room or controlling the goods and services that you require from outside your property, you are still under the control of that enemy.
Sean| 8.3.10 @ 10:40AM
I think you overestimate the reach and strength of terrorists. They can not control our goods and services or trade. They have no naval, land or air power. It is extremely difficult for them to kill anyone. Their greatest weapon is to instill terror in others to make them change their way of life. If you stop becoming afraid of them they lose a lot of their power. Right now they are loving our ineffectual war efforts because it brings us close to them where their only tactics of IEDs and suicide bombing can work. They can inflict more casualties and economic damage than they ever could otherwise do.
Thomas| 8.3.10 @ 10:59AM
You misunderstand what terrorists truly are. It is virtually impossible for any independent terrorist group to exist. All current terrorist groups, especially the mainstream groups including Al Qaeda, are state funded and, to a large extent, state controlled. They are simply irregular military forces used to further the goals of established state governments, which seek to reduce their exposure to direct retaliation. Look at all of the European terrorist groups, such as The Red Army Faction, that simply faded away following the fall of the Soviet Union. Al Qaeda enjoyed a certain amount of autonomy because of extensive funding from religious/social networks in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the Middle Eastern Muslim world. But, since the invasion of Afghanistan, they have fallen under increased state control.
With large scale terrorist organizations, you are not fighting the organization, you are fighting its sponsor as well. And that is usually a state.
Melvin| 8.3.10 @ 11:00AM
Rule #1 never ever underestimate your enemy. Terrorists absolutely bring any Civilization to it's knees.
All Iran has to do is plug the Straits of Hormuz with burning and sinking oil tankers. All terrorists have to do is threaten to attack the major oil fields around the Globe and the trickle down effect will be devastating by causing the price per barrel to go into the upper atmosphere.
This in-turn will cause the price for food to go up well because the cost of shipping will rise as well. This is especially difficult for smaller countries to absorb who cannot produce their own food in sufficient quantities to feed their people.
The big economies wanted free trade and unfortunately this is one of its by products. Geographics is no longer and insulator from other Countries having issues.
canuckistani| 8.3.10 @ 11:48AM
How about #3....American projection has consequences, and a price needs to be paid from time to time.
If we do #2, how about Oklahoma city? How do you tell institutions to refuse Saudi money? Are you going to pony up the difference? Which muslims? Shi'ites just want to left alone. Most Persians are really Americans in commerce. Druze and other sects are complete pacifists...what about them? What about tribes that cooperate with the US like the Kurds and Afghani informants? No asylum either?
Did you want all Irish banned as well in the 70's and 80's? Perhaps we should call you John instead of Sean?
Bydand76| 8.3.10 @ 9:07PM
"Shi'ites just want to left alone"
You cannot be serious with this comment???
Have you ever heard of Hizb' allah ? (Hezbollah?)
Are you from Canada or what?
Whats your problem with the Irish? The IRA was fighting for independance and unity! NOT religious autonomy! Granted there is some religious politics involved with the troubles but NOTHING like the islamic question!
Just so you know, I lost family in that fight, so be careful what you say please!
FOR LIBERTY! (Pro Libertate!)
Brian Mc| 8.3.10 @ 10:20AM
Islam is willing to 'get along' just so long as everyone else submits. Therein lies the rub.
It truly is "us" vs. "them" and it's a fight to the death. Submission or our death and that of self-determination, liberty, freedom, worship. We beat around the bush and play these word games while the Islamic hatred for anything non-Islamic grows...
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
"Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me."
"Love thy neighbor as you do, yourself."
Gee, I wonder what other words there are that Muslims can't utter?
canuckistani| 8.3.10 @ 11:53AM
I agree Islam is defective, but where are those three axioms you quote when we deposed the Iranian pres and put in the Shah? Used drones on Pakistan without permission? Bombed Cambodia? Used nukes on Japan?
I like America, and I like a strong projection of our power to keep me warm and cozy. But I am not naive enough to know that people are not complete idiots around the world. They learn, they plan and they take a shot at knocking off American imperialism.
We have a lot to learn from Rome and Britain. All good things come to an end.
Blackwatch| 8.3.10 @ 6:42PM
The main thrust of Mr. Babins argument is that you must actually declare you are at war and then fight as if you are at war against the State sponsor of terrrorism. Its a proxy war. I appreciate the clarity of his argument.
Dithering about the affectiveness of certain munitions is missing the point entirely. People are getting killed daily as we dither & skip down the path of incomplete nation building.
RE: you list of Evil American deeds, you left out the fire bombing of dresden. oh wait--that was the "good war" against the Nazi's-and they deserved it since they are white.
You seriously equate deposing the government of Iran, launching missiles against terrorist targets in a war zone and installing the puppet shah with ......the atomic bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki? We were fighting a declared war against the Imperial Empire of Japan you know. The people who committed the crime known as the Rape of Nanking. The fact that we used a powerful weapon against two cities caused them to capitulate and over a million American and Japanese lives were saved. So next time we want to kill an enemy we do it your way and we first drop a million post it notes telling them when we are comming?
Is it the surprise factor that gets to you or the fact that we killed people who we were at war with?? You don't fight fair in a war. The terrorists certainly don't. They murder journalists and cut their heads off live on the internet.
I don't know if you are from Canada or Pakistan but you aren't helping here.
Dan D| 8.3.10 @ 10:36AM
Jed Babbin reminds me of the economist in that classic joke about the three men stranded on a desert island trying to figure out how to open the canned food. "First, assume a can opener!"
Yes, a declaration of war against Syria and Iran, by all means. Who's going to whip the war resolution through Congress? Should we assign that one to Dennis Kucinich in the House, and maybe Carl Levin in the Senate? That should make it easy!
canuckistani| 8.3.10 @ 11:58AM
Bush 1 and Junior didn't either.......
Will Palin have the 'cojones'? Doubt it. The military has learned and realized they DO make policy by enabling politicians to envision a strategy based on bad data.
Look for the purge of projectionist generals from the military colleges in the coming years, and a more moderated war ambition.
Unless you are in favor of a draft and special taxes to cover your bloodlust, go away.
William R| 8.3.10 @ 12:18PM
Syria hasn't attacked the United States. Neither has Iran. Yet you want to go to war with them. Perhaps we should follow this advice
" Perhaps we didn’t appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the marines’ safety that it should have.
In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believe the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be alive today."---Ronald Reagan
Melvin| 8.3.10 @ 1:20PM
We have been in a proxy war with Iran since 1979.
William R| 8.3.10 @ 2:42PM
We were in a proxy war with the Soviets yet we didn't attack them. During Vietnam we were in a proxy war with the Chinese. I'm sure Iran helps the Taliban, but from their point of view it is defensive in nature. We do have a large army in both Iraq and Afghanistan nations right next to Iran.
Thomas| 8.3.10 @ 3:28PM
Actually, we were in a proxy war with the USSR in Vietnam, as they were the main supplier of weapons and advisers to North Vietnam. And, though it may have slipped your attention, the US has not attacked Iran, either. Nor have we attacked Syria, Lebenon, Jordan, North Korea or China. Armed conflict is always a last resort and should only be engaged in when all else has failed.
William R| 8.3.10 @ 5:05PM
But NeoCons and most movement conservatives want a war with Iran. The twin disasters of Iraq and Afghanistan aren't enough for them.
jasperbob| 8.3.10 @ 10:42AM
The former USSR chocked to death on the internal consequences of imperialism at home since the 15th century and its post-WW2 imperialism in Eastern Europe. Containment by NATO and the USA allowed its internal contradictions, a la Marx ,to simmer and then boil over. It essentially self-destructed.
Iran wants to be the "big boy" on the local block so be it. Draw some lines and allow it to choke to death on the chicken bones of Afganistan and its own internal contradictions.
Thousands of atomic weapons did not in the end stop the dissintegraton of the old Soviet Union. As Bismark noted in the 19th century "its guns or butter." The Soviets choose guns but failed to produce enough butter for its own people and those enslaved in its empire.
Ken (Old Texican)| 8.3.10 @ 12:03PM
jasperbob,
Yeah, the Soviet Union disintegrated. It took 70 some years and a hundred million deaths of their own "proletariat", and 3 generations of abject slavery to the rest.
Small price to pay for STUPID? How about COWARDICE?
Screw the communists, (pardon the shorthand), here at home, and the Islamics everywhere.
Either of those gotta' kill a hundred million armed Americans...
Rotts of ruck!
For God's sake, man, quit taking the "long view", and get serious.
JP| 8.3.10 @ 1:38PM
Islam has been around a lot longer than Marxism or the old Czarist Empire. The Muslims have a dedication, loyalty, and an ability to submit to authority that the old Soviets could dream of.
Arnold| 8.3.10 @ 1:02PM
I will repeat what I said earlier, does anybody else have any better ideas.
The only way to deal with Iraq and Afghanistan is to turn them into American colonies. Reinstate the Homestead Act and encourage Americans and Mexicans to settle there. After 50 years when the natives have been reduced to a small minority or run off into reservations, these two colonies can be granted statehood or just kept in Puerto Rico like status. They can also be used as a dumping ground for our prisoners and other criminal elements who are not easily convicted.
JP| 8.3.10 @ 1:35PM
Yes, we've been in a proxy wat with Iran for 31 years, and Syria since 2003. If you look at our casulties in Iraq from 2003-2007, it is easy to tie both Syira and Iran to them. Both nation's had agents in Iraq during that period. But, the experts at Foggy Bottom fought every attempt by CENTCOM to expand operations into Syria and Iran in order not to fan criticism form the EU and arab nations. Bush allowed IEDs, weapons, money, and terrorists to be routinely transported into Iraq from these 2 nations. Heck, in places like Hamburg Germany and Paris France it was well know amongst the arabs living there where exactly this "underground railroad" existed. And countless intelligence reports documented the large number of European Muslims killed in Iraq. Iran, on the other hand, funneled money, weapons, and at times thier own Revolutionary Guard officers. Of coure, Bush refused to sent these comatants to Gitmo, where they belonged.
And in case anyone forgot, the 1996 terror bombing at the Khobar Towers in Saudi was an Iranian Revolutionary Guard operation.
John DuBose| 8.3.10 @ 1:42PM
Afghanistan has been a festering sore of low grade war since long before Islam. Only the people there can fix it.
All we can do is try to isolate the bad guys and
haul in or get rid of a few of the worst perpertrators of terror.
That would be a lot cheaper than a war where one can not even define victory. + we can not afford it anyway.
George True| 8.3.10 @ 1:42PM
I agree that the war in Afghanistan has become a protracted conflict with no end in sight. And the American people have no stomach for such a long and drawn out war. It is certainly logical to consider getting out of a seemingly endless war.
On the other hand, few people consider the real potential consequences of failure in Afghanistan. If or when we pull out, it is a foregone conclusion that the Taliban will take over again. And it is quite likely that Al Qaida would come back in and set up shop again. Both entities would probably have full moral and material support from Iran. And their very first order of business would be to destabilize and overthrow the government of their next door neighbor Pakistan.
Now imagine an Iran-style theocracy firmly in charge of Pakistan, and thus in possession of Pakistan's SEVENTY nuclear warheads. I do not know offhand what kind of ballistic missile technology Pakistan has, but it really doesn't matter, as they would not need to launch a single one. They need only distribute a few of them to the likes of Syria, Hezbollah, Iran (assuming they did not have their own by then) and the game is over. They could essentially blackmail Israel, Europe, and America from then on to get whatever they wanted.
Or maybe they would decide to go for broke by detonating 3-5 of them over US airspace for the mother of all EMP's. The delivery vehicles could be Gulfstream IV's enroute to New York, Washington, Chicago, Denver, and Los Angeles flying on approved FAA flight plans.
No decision on whether to stay or get out in Afghanistan can be made without considering who might get their hands on Pakistan's 70 nukes when we leave, and what (if anything) we would be willing to do to prevent such a catastrophe.
Mark Shepler- Jupiter FL| 8.3.10 @ 2:28PM
Sean,
#1 is inevitable, rendering...
#2 moot
Your comments are based on static thinking. Sure, "terrorists" are limited in reach and strength if by that one means isolated bands of ragtag, be-robed, weird-beard skinnies clambering in the rocks and gorges of Afghanistan. Or a furtive cell of two or three jihadis whipping up a crude car bomb to park in front of an embassy somewhere. But that's not where we're headed.
The day is coming, sooner than any one of us imagines, that a nuke, chemical or biological attack strikes a major western city. My money is on nukes given their propensity for cutting to the chase and going for the biggest bang. They are not into subtle messages or "surgical strikes", they are into the wholesale killing of infidels until the rest submit. So you think if we retreat to fortress America and raise the drawbridge we'll be safe from all that? All it will take is a small, unobtrusive freighter parked in a harbor with a middling sized nuclear weapon or a large box truck driven across our porous border or a hundred other easy ways. But they must test it first some say. Really? More thinking in the box.
Everyone's waiting for Iran to test a bomb to announce their capability and then tip their increasingly capable missiles for the threat to emerge and be known so that we can deal with them as we have all the others in the past. But they and their motives are unlike any others we’ve confronted in the past so I ask why must it go like that? That's not how I'd do it were I them. Again, this is not 1945 with them building the first-ever bomb. It's old news and not a question of knowing how but merely marshaling the resources and components. So why would they announce it and tip their hand? It'll be announced with a bang and in the doing continue both their double-game of deniability for the sponsors and us at our self-imposed fool's errand of separating the sheep from the goats- those mythological "moderate" muslims from those meanie "extremists" of our dreams. By our own lights and their design we'll be impotent to respond lest we kill too many “innocents”. They know us better than we know ourselves any more. If it doesn't go off, sail it back and get it right while we slumber on because they surely will eventually and they're in it for the long haul. But it's coming as sure as night follows day.
How do I know? Because they say so. All the time. They have made it crystal clear their mission is to convert all the world and to kill or subjugate all those who resist and gladly die in the trying if need be. But the west's political classes simply refuse to take them at their word. After all, our elites are liberals whose worldview is nothing if not condescending and having long forsaken belief that any cause, even life itself, is worth killing or dying for blithely leave us supremely vulnerable to men who do. To discount their conviction is merely to heap insult and scorn and certainly wins no "hearts and minds" all of our self-congratulations for high-mindedness notwithstanding. And yet, our feckless leaders press on in their delusions.
I think what Mr. Babbin is getting at without saying so out loud at this point is we must be prepared for #1 some day, perhaps the day after tomorrow, and it's better to take it to them first then await my scenario above. And one of the best ideas along his reasoning I read was a column years ago by a fellow who used to be at State. Sorry, cannot recall his name. His thesis was that we should invoke a new MAD doctrine in that we announce loudly and clearly that if we're ever hit in a big way we're just going to take them all out. All "muslim" capitals, holy places, military infrastructure, etc. Why? Because they're top-down societies and the word will go out across the umma from all the princes, sheiks, emirs, mullahs and holy men not to mess with the Americans. It'll end the double-game of good muslim/bad muslim and dry up the larger ocean of moral and materiel support in which the terrorist fish swim. And thus, perhaps, we won't have to actually do it.
Maybe. But what surely must end if we're to survive this civilizational struggle is our smug notion we can separate the good from "bad" muslims and thereby discredit what we think is a particular "form" of Islam. It is neither our place nor within our capability to do this. Indeed, I hold it a special form of hubris and condescension for us to assert we can and is a distinct product of western thinking. All we can hope to do is awe them into a truce and/or give them a working model of our alternative and hope they embrace it. That’s what we’re trying to do in Iraq and Afghanistan. Time will tell if it takes but I’m with Mr. Babbin in my doubts. For I suspect over there a "bad", less pious or committed muslim is one who does not actually pull the trigger but merely shakes his fist in the streets for CNN's cameras, drops a few drachmas in the Islamic charity jar at the grocer's knowing it will reach the jihadis, turns a blind eye to the bomb works down the street and slinks off to a quiet life at home only to reemerge in boisterous celebration with his neighbors over the latest murderous outrage in the name of Islam some where around the globe. Because in their world he is the equivalent of Henry V's "man abed" whilst better men fight and die in the good fight and so "holds his manhood cheap", not to mention his tongue, while in their presence. But he certainly does not condemn or combat what the "better" mighty men of Islam do for he too favors the cause of Allah with his heart and soul and so does at least what the limits of his courage permits. It is he that we in the west call the Moderate and on whom we pin our hopes Islam itself can be rescued from what we diagnose an errant interpretation. A truly liberal muslim who actually works, which is to say risks his life, over there for pluralism, democracy, equality and all we hold dear, vs. exhorting his brethren from the salons and faculty lounges of the west, they call- Apostate with all its deadly consequences. It is a mirror world of ours and the opposite in almost every way. Good luck in "reforming" that as we deem proper.
In conversations at the cigar shop I always make this point of the necessity of a Manichean view of the struggle with a question. A Manichean view, by the way, not of my own desire but imposed on us for if only one side declares “you are with us or against us” does that not make if just as so as if both declared it equally? And have not those making war on us not said as much? Here’s the question: What was the first European country we invaded in WWII? Invariably, the answers are either blank stares, Germany and sometimes, incorrectly though understandably, France. The answer is Italy. Huh?, they say. Yep, poor, hapless Italy who up to that point hadn't fired a shot in anger at us save their inept fighting and surrender under the Germans in north Africa. And yet we and the British invaded and devastated her like a Biblical horde. Why? Because she was on the same Fascist team as Germany and Japan and actively committed to its propagation and defense. Needing a place to get into the fight and under the general principle of attacking the enemy wherever and however we could we invaded and bled her white. We didn't relent even after she cried uncle because her former allies, the Germans, fought on within her borders. And so it will be with Islam. We don't want to do it, we're not looking to kill "innocent" people in places "that did not attack us", as the current exculpatory (for us) formulation goes, but we will. We'll have to in much bigger and horrific ways we ever imagined possible unless we get a handle on the true nature, magnitude and scope of this struggle.
It'll be either that or submit not because Mr. Babbin, me or anyone else says so but because they do. They are not going away nor are they going to stand down and turn their swords into plowshares. Those carrying on the jihad mean what they say, say it all the time and back it up with action. There are tens of millions of so committed and hundreds millions more who support their goals morally and materially. There is no “separating the sheep from the goats” just as there was no separating Germans from the Nazi war effort. They know this but it works to their advantage for us to believe otherwise. And so, whether we kill hundreds of thousands or even millions of them some day rests not on what they think and do along the way so much as on what we do, right now. We must begin to think clearly and act decisively in defense of our civilization or we will indeed kill many, many thousands in places that “did not attack us”.
FeralCat| 8.3.10 @ 2:33PM
Circa 2012:
Just about for years ago I set out on Obama's Afghanistan road,
Seekin' my fame and glory, lookin' to turn the mullah’s hemorrhoid into a pot of gold.
Well, things got bad, and things got worse, I guess you will know the tune.
Oh ! lord, stuck in Obama's Afghanistan yet again.
Flew in yet again on a big plane, I hope I'll be in one piece flyin out when I go.
I was yet again just passin' through, must now be yet another 3 tours or more.
Running out of time and patience ["Not to complain but whatever the hell happened to my youth?!"], looks like they took still more of my friends.
Oh ! lord, Im stuck in Obama's Afghanistan yet again.
The Hope and Change man in the White House said yet again I was on my way.
Somewhere I lost his connection, he ran out of words to say.
I came into Kabul, yet another one year stand, looks like the plans fell through yet again
Oh ! lord, stuck in Obama's Afghanistan yet again.
Mmmm...
If I only had a woman ["Hey Jack, do you remember what a woman is?"], for evry Obama tour Ive done.
And evry time Ive had to fight while cheered on by CINO's, Obama sat back home oblivious to Islam and power drunk.
You know, Id like to catch the next plane back to where Im from.
Oh ! lord, Im stuck in Obama's Afghanistan yet again.
Oh ! lord, Im stuck in Obama's Afghanistan yet again.
- CCR Soldier Boy
FeralCat| 8.3.10 @ 2:38PM
"Jed Babbin: Call it nation-building, call it counterinsurgency"
In Vietnam it was called clear-hold-build. Petraues calls his recycle of it COIN.
FeralCat| 8.3.10 @ 3:13PM
Petraues with his COIN (recycled clear-hold-build from Vietnam)/"Hearts and Minds"/Serving the People"/"Unicorns and Lollipops"/"Courageous Restraint"/"Code Pink ROE" makes me think of Alec Guinness' mad Colonel Nicholson in "The Bridge on the River Kwai".
martin j smith| 8.3.10 @ 3:53PM
In my lifetime ( that would start with FDR ) we have had not one president ( with partial exception of Raegan ) who could deal with Islamic Terrorism --and in Raegan's case his success had more to do with the USSR. We would need a president who would be able have extremely thick skin towards the MSM,the Socialist Democrat Party, and all of their friends. A really tough job. And did I mention the same tough thick skin towards the United Nations. We would have to be able to deal in a similar way with our so called European Allies. This is a very tall order But, if this President had the backing of the vast majority of the American People by talking with them openly about the dangers of Islamic Radicalism including what sacrifices we as a nation would be asked to make . In this regard, the President should be the first to set an example of sacrifice. Unlike GWB --who withdrew from talking to the American people to BHO who lies with ease to the American people--we have been treated to the worst examples of leadership in our foreign policy and domestic as well.
To do what I suggest it would require this nation to be in some cases totally independent of the UN and NATO ( our so called allies ) and need to assert our sovereignty. In many ways we would be not so much isolationist but Independents and would require leadership that would be nothing short of remarkable.
One example: Culd you imagine a President would tell the Iranians, if they did not stop aid terrorism we would consider this a declaration of War and act accordingly. Amazing. Would I ike to see such a president--you but. Will we have one ? If we are lucky we would have a more assertive and aggressive as well as outspoken GWB. Even that would be amazing
uncle curmudgeon| 8.3.10 @ 5:55PM
Right after 9/11 it was fashionable to fly the flag and equate the image of the fire-fighters atop the rubble with that of the conquerors of Iwo Jima. I kept waiting for the next image to emerge, but we took the empower-the-rulers-and-restrict-liberty approach to the crisis (no surprise there). What image you ask? That would be the surrender of Imperial Japan aboard the USS Missouri. There they stood lined up under the mighty 16" guns, each in his turn signing over to the loathsome barbarians (whose monkey-suits they had doned for the occasion) sacred Nippon and the fate of all of their people. The treaty lies on some kind of cloth which has been draped over the desk (GI? pehaps; white oak stained gunstock, or galvanized steel painted OD green).How about the guy sitting accross the desk, with his starched blouse, no tie, and the battered commander's cap that was his trademark. Yup! It's just another day at the office for the Sleeping Giant.
On 9/12 we should have had full declaration of war and brought overwealming force to bear on our enemies until they, too, crumbled. THAT'S how you "nation-build"!
Ken (Old Texican)| 8.3.10 @ 5:58PM
UH OH!
I'm sometimes a little slow, but the comments here have given me a serious chill.
Could Mr. Babbin be pre-supposing a massive hit by Islam on our country?
I'm not talking about a 9-11, but a city or three nuked, or killed with bugs of some sort or dirty-bombed.
Or, are the Muslims waiting to see just how many times our own government shoots us in our own feet before acting on a crippled America?
You know, folks, Sarah Palin is the only conservative candidate I know who saw her son off to war. I know she takes the threat seriously. Perhaps there are others I do not know.
I do know I cracked up the other day when I watched the video of her saying the President has no cajones.
Heh, if she does choose to run, it is going to get lively...and I can't wait for her new book to be released.
I am almost certain that the release date, and the content secrecy is predicated upon a post election scenario in November. She may have in fact written two separate final chapters...to insert depending upon the outcome.
Patzer| 8.4.10 @ 1:24AM
This can be won; the American people needto insist on victory.
Long Ben| 8.4.10 @ 4:44AM
Here's a question for all to ponder. If Allah were indeed the Diety would he allow the U. S. Air Force to turn Mecca to glass ? We need our own energy sources , so we no longer have to put up with the Saudi's and others export of radical Mohammedanism.
David March| 8.4.10 @ 3:44PM
Excellent piece except for one thing.
South Vietnam was not defeated by an insurgency. South Vietnam was defeated by the US failing to support its allies, and most importantly by the NVA who had a mechanized army that had more tanks than those used by the Germans at Kursk. This force was able to hide in the Sanctuary areas where it could not be bombed. Guys hiding in bunkers did not defeat the south. An army of 150000 men and an force consisting of 4500 AFV’s took out that country.
DM