My Plan on How to Fight the Next Middle East War
We sure keep getting into wars in the Middle East, don’t we? There are just so many people there in dire need of a good bombing — terrorists, nutso leaders, camels who look at us cross-eyed — that it’s hard to choose whom to even focus on. But instead of the rah-rah “Let’s kill those bastards!” you’d expect from Americans, we’re now in more of a long, drawn-out-sigh, “Not another war” mood. And remember that this is from people like me who have nothing at all to do with the military action over there — we’re not even required to find the countries on a map, much less be engaged in combat. I guess we’re just tired of hearing about the wars.
War is hell … if you’re in the war. For everyone else, it’s the whining that gets to us. The constant calls of “quagmire” and how everyone is dying for nothing and that we’re only making things worse and how we’re wasting money (yeah, the left used to pretend to care about that) really wear on us. I don’t know how our troops are doing with all the deployments, but all the civilians seem worn out from only hearing about war. We’re all war weary — despite most of us not being directly affected by any of the combat. Maybe our troops can handle getting shot at and going on multiple deployments just fine, but we can’t deal with the civilians complaining about it all the time.
So what’s the solution? Don’t get into any more wars? Well, President Obama has pretty much proven that’s not a possibility. I mean, he was the stereotypical liberal peacenik, denouncing President Bush as vehemently as possible as an awful, awful man for even contemplating getting us into a conflict with a country that was no direct threat to us, and even he couldn’t help but start another war in the Middle East (I mean, “kinetic military action in the Middle East,” wink wink). It’s like the dictators there exist just for the purpose of being villains. If you accurately portrayed them in a movie, critics would call them unrealistic for being too one-dimensionally evil and crazy. And when you see people that terrible and also so much weaker than us militarily — the U.S. fighting them outright on a battlefield would be like the NFL versus a peewee league team — no one has the willpower to not smack them around.
Obviously avoiding wars in the Middle East is not a realistic option, and I’m sure we’ll get involved in plenty more in the future. So how can we do that and avoid the constant whining of dumb hippies and having all those useless countries in Europe call us warmongers? Well, think back to the Iraq War and when people really started to viciously complain about it. We had broad support going in, and people were still pretty up on it during the initial bombing campaign and even once we got to the point of pulling down the Saddam statue. People truly started getting angry, and the “Bush=Hitler” signs came out in full force, when we stayed and tried to help.
Bombing a country is nothing, but hanging around the country afterward, helping it rebuild and establish a system of government where the citizens don’t get bossed around by a homicidal dictator, gets us into trouble. And it is pretty difficult for the troops; it requires them to stand out there exposed among the populace instead of just running around in tanks and exploding stuff. Plus it takes a long time, during which there will be constant whining about it, especially if there are Republicans in office to blame. The left basically collaborated with the insurgents in Iraq, saying, “Hey, if you kill more troops, then we will scream even louder about how awful this war is and hopefully get Bush out of office. So help us out here!”
It’s sad that this is supposed to be a joke but actually sounds like a pretty damn good idea to me, and probably to others who come to this site as well.
When I was in the Army, we had a slogan…
“Kill ‘em all. Let God sort them out.”
Maybe our new slogan should be something more along the lines of:
“Bomb them back to the stone age… then make sure they stay there so they can’t hurt anyone.”
Simply set up a blockade of all of the middle east and North African nations, don’t allow anyone from that part of the world into the United States and anytime any of those nations start causing trouble, send in a couple hundred bombers and cruise missiles to shut them up again.
Mr. Obama gets his wish. The War on Terror would really be over. We would be condemned by the rest of the world but we’d never have to worry about another 9/11/01.
Just open up a franchise of the world’s largest glass manufacturing business. By the way, how can you bomb them back to the stone age when they never left them.
a question about not allowing people into the USA… wouldn’t that require us to have secure borders first? just a thought.
I am a big fan of destroying their infrastructure, power plants, dams, refineries, etc., from the air, then leave. They can spend the next decade or two trying to survive as a stone age country. Tell other countries if they mess with us, we’ll do the same to them.
Some countries actually have some…
…stones.
The left basically collaborated with the insurgents in Iraq, saying, “Hey, if you kill more troops, then we will scream even louder about how awful this war is and hopefully get Bush out of office. So help us out here!”
Mr. Fleming, you have stated this better than anyone else.
Am I to understand that you consider Liberals as a treasonous fifth, bent on political domination?
Now that you mention it, that sounds pretty accurate. Very astute.
Hot dog, we have a weiner.
As with most of our modern wars, mission creep and nation building always set in and proves to be a disaster for this country. Does anyone remember what the most successful major war of ours was since the end of World War II? It was the First Gulf War. We went in, beat the holy hell out of Saddam Hussein’s forces and devestated his war-making capabilities, declared victory, and then left. It was perfect. We had an objective, we went in, and achieved it.
Now people moaned and groaned that Hussein stayed in power, forcing us to invade Iraq a second time. Well, so what? If we had attacked Iraq again, stayed only a few months to make sure Hussein and his psychotic kids were actually killed (putting Hussein on trial was a farce), and then left, who could have disputed that we had indeed won? We achieved our objective for regime change, we could have put in an interim government made up of some other generals with black berets, and said “Good Luck and may God Bless” and left. It really didn’t matter what happened to Iraq after that. We could have even kept a few bases with the Kurds in the North in case of emergencies, since they were the only people in the region who actually liked us. But as for the Shia and the Sunnis, what did it matter to us if they slaughtered each other (which they did, anyway)? But no, we had to go in for Nation Building and that was the end of the operation. This, too, will still fail and Iraq will probably fall apart as soon as we leave.
We need to dust off the old British military tradition of “Punitive Expeditions.” Go in, make a crushing military point, and then leave. Doesn’t really matter who runs the country after that because they will be so intimidated by your military might that they will not trouble you again. If they do, really flatten them the second time and then they will certainly get the point. In either case, it’s much quicker and much less costly in American Blood and Treasure. And THAT is the major problem today. We are more concerned about the people we invade than we are about our own national interests. And THAT is how you LOSE wars.
I’m reminded of Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle’s A Mote in God’s Eye. Interdiction and isolation on a grand scale.
Let’s use Niven and Pournelle’s idea and set off our entire atomic stockpile on one side of the Earth so we can plunge into the sun and all die.
That’ll teach ‘em.
Violent idiots.
Actually it would be a lot more humanitarian to do a wing tip to wing tip flyover dropping leaflets about Democracy and how to form governments, happy face posters wishing the combatants “Our Best Wishes, Good Luck” against the evil dictator, toiletries, k rations, Wal Mart coupons, paint by number pictures of Mohammed w/crayons included and maybe some mints, etc. At least to begin with.
This could give us some time to decide if we actually want to go ahead and bomb the hell out of them. Heh, heh, heh, I just love fooling with their minds like this. It will totally confuse them. Heh, heh, heh.
Leaflets are nice, but how about dropping something more useful? Like rifles? Think about it. We destroy all the dictator’s planes, helicopters, tanks, APC’s, artillery, etc., then we drop millions of rifles and boxes of ammunition, and let the people choose. Yay! Democracy!
That sounds pretty much like what is happening in Libya, aside from actually arming the rebels. How do you think it’s working out for us? If the rebels really do have a significant element of Al Qaida supporters, do you think it will end well if we arm them against Kaddafi?
The theory proposed here is that if they get troublesome, we smack them again. Its kinda the ‘no carrot, but stick’ approach.
Not sure if its a good idea, but it does have some charm.
You’d think we would learn
“That sounds pretty much like what is happening in Libya, aside from actually arming the rebels.”
Yep, that’s exactly my plan, aside from actually including the important parts. If we don’t take Kaddafi’s heavy weaponry out of the picture, he crushes the rebels quickly. But if we do take out his heavy weaponry, and fail to give the rebels enough small arms to even the playing field, he still crushes the rebels. Of course, if more people are willing to fight for Kaddafi, on a level playing field, than are willing to fight against him, he still wins. But I don’t believe that is the case. He isn’t in power because he is popular, he is in power because his faction has an enormous military advantage over the majority of the population. Take away that advantage, and Kaddafi loses without a single U.S. soldier stepping foot on Libyan soil.
As for whether or not the rebels have a significant element of Al Qaida supporters, that only becomes relevant if they 1.) are on the winning side, and 2.) are the majority on the winning side. Very unlikely, and easy enough to deal with if that becomes the case. The main threats would be that they use Libyan oil money to sponsor terrorism, or try to restart Libya’s nuclear weapons program. Basically, Libya becomes another Iran. Except, unlike Iran, Libya is directly accessible to our military forces without the need to get flyover permission or lease bases from unreliable allies.
Yes lets drop rifles. we will be adored by the Libyans.
Per capita, they are the are the largest group of foreign fighters killing our people in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Dropping leaflets only works if people are predisposed to read them. Most of our “problem countries” today are full of people who either (a) cannot read, or (b) are conditioned by their belief systems to only read things which agree with those belief systems as interpreted by their “religious leaders”.
This probably explains why “Mein Kampf”, “The Chronicles of the Learned Elders of Zion”, and Jimmy Carter’s “Palestine- Peace Not Apartheid” are best-sellers throughout the Arab world. Never mind that the first is a delusional racist tract, the second is a forgery promulgated by delusional racists, and the third is the work of someone who is delusional in toto.
There’s an old saying that goes “you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink; you can lead a man to knowledge but you can’t make him think”.
In the case of those who dream of destroying us (for the “crime” of not being them), you can tell them all day that they’re barking up the wrong tree- and they’ll just burn down all the forests.
clear ether
eon
Sad to see something written like this getting serious comments. The problem we all have is that we don’t believe any of these other people can wish for the kind of freedom we have ourselves and so we don’t enforce it when we go to some hell hole. The First Amendment is the most important phrase supporting freedom ever written. All we have to do is tell a troublesome agency that all their leaders need to come out and support it on video or we know where they live. With JDAM we could open up the leadership ranks for the people every single day until we found a group of people that believed in freedom, too. We should probably start testing this theory in Afganistan because I’m past tired of having our best and brightest sacrifice for a bunch of savages that DESIRE to behead Christian converts in their parliament!
No, the problem is that none of the people who supposedly DO wish for the kind of freedom we have do much about it – they depend on us to do it for them.
And we’re tired of both doing that AND be derided and mocked for it. So, since the derision and mocking aren’t stopping, as some point, we will stop.
Very sad for the rest of the world, really. Maybe some of them will actually do the work for themselves, then. Yes, that’s a shame, and yes, many, MANY people will die. Welcome to the wages of “treating the US like shit all the time” – eventually, we get tired of taking care of you. Grow up and deal with your own crap.
I know the article is tongue-in-cheek, but we do need to find an alternative to nation-building in Muslim countries. The current gameplan of staying on after a war and trying to fix what probably can’t be fixed should seem unworkable now to even the average Washington politician.
If we were so afraid that Iran would come into Iraq after 2003 why didn’t we put several fully equipped divisions all along the Iraq-Iran border? Isn’t this what we did in Europe during the Cold War and what we continue to do now in South Korea? Makes you wonder about the people in Washington.
(W)e do need to find an alternative to nation-building in Muslim countries.
Just like Mark Twain’s father did, Ann Coulter gets smarter and smarter every year. By now, her advice of 9/12/2001 has become brilliant.
War in the ME is mostly about manipulation games. Actually the muslims really don’t mind it at all. Because they know for a certainty at the end of the day, one unpopular muslim will be replaced by another unpopular musim leader. It is inherently an ongoing cycle of events of unchanging repetition that has been played out over the centuries.
But the big prize at this time is the drawing in of the infidel to spend his money and blood on their ongoing cycle. This they hope will go on for centuries more if they don’t go broke. But broke is good too. So it is always a win-win situation of Islam. They love us to participate in their eternal wars.
Personally, I think the only sane and reasonable reaction to the muslim world is no reaction at all. Unless, it will directly affect our interests. The R2P program is just a deception to invite the infidel to partake of their ideals and way of life. It should be fully rejected.
“Kill them all, let God sort them out” Stonwall Jackson.
Actually, the phrase dates from the massacre of Béziers in 1209, in which 20,000 Cathar heretics were killed. From Wikipedia:
My recommendation is that America should avoid all wars until it elects a non-Muslim C-I-C.
Things change, Frank. Me and my fellow hippies are Palinistas. Freedom and Ben Franklin, baby. Try bashing the commies and leave us alone.
This article depends upon superficiality to make its ironic point, and therefore deserves to make only a superficial impression. For example, the author says: “… it’s useful to understand that no matter how much the left screamed about the Iraq War in those protests, 95% of that was partisan silliness …” Why does the author use a word like “silliness” when there was nothing remotely “silly” about the motivation and consequences of such protests? The motivation was to subvert American power and sovereignty and the consequence was a man now living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue who has been doing just that. That does not strike me as “silly,” but as a good deal more serious.
To attempt to draw a straight line from going to war in Iraq to electing O’Sputnik, now that’s silly. The single most important reason The O’Bolshe’One won was the economic collapse although choosing McCain was not exactly um…brilliant. As for why the Social Democrats chose O’Sputnik well that just one of those Manic Progressive mysteries. With any luck that choice will lead to an extinction event.
“As with most of our modern wars, mission creep and nation building always set in and proves to be a disaster for this country. Does anyone remember what the most successful major war of ours was since the end of World War II? It was the First Gulf War.”
The Marshall Plan was not mission creep and it was nation building and not a disaster. It was why Germany-Greece-Italy-France did not become communist aligned nations.
The First Gulf War was a failure because it left all the circumstances which caused it–Saddam Hussein’s rule of Iraq–intact. It was a disastrous outcome, costing much merely to return to the threatening status quo.
“Go in, make a crushing military point, and then leave.”
And keep on having to do it, getting nothing out of it. The Brits never had peace with the natives until they took the place over, or some other power did. There is no such thing as a crushing military point without regime change and nation building, unless the blow is so crushing it amounts to depopulation, genocide.
“Nation building” creates security and trade opportunities both for us and for the natives, and improves the strategic situation from then on. It should be undertaken at every opportunity.
The cicumstances after GW-I, in 1991, we did NOT listen to Stormin’ Norman and FINISH THE JOB! His chicken-poopiness, Colin Powell, said NO! Then, Poopie Powell did NOT listen to Rumsfeld, and how’s that all working out for everyone?
Powell is not the man he appears, is weak and indecisive under Battle Conditions, worries more about his legacy than his troops. Chicken poopie head!
Further to the point of WW2, the advertised result of that conflict was the utter submission of the conquered antagonists in unconditional surrender–their governments, anyway. After crushing the populations, it was not too hard to reduce the probabilities of insurgency in the occupied Axis countries undergoing rebuilding.
Note that these populations had been reduced completely in their will to fight, something that has not been done since: essentially the people were willing to reform, and so have behaved ever since. The example of countries under the USSR also helped of course.
–JC
John Derbyshire at NRO calls this philosophy, “Rubble Doesn’t Make Trouble”.
I thought phrase was “More rubble, less trouble”?
Either way the sentiment is the same and I like it.
My 3 point program:
1. Nuke
2. Pave
3. Argue about who should have been kicked off American Idol instead.
I could get behind the “Rubble doesn’t make trouble” doctrine.
If only somebody could come up with A Realistic Plan For World Peace.
The “Rubble” Plan just come to mind.
There is always Alahu Ak-Barb Koranic Lighter Fluid:
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2011/04/open-thread-978.html
OMG! This actually makes sense. It is a satirical article, and it makes sense. Bomb them all and leave. What have I become! [Sobbing sounds, wailing and gnashing of teeth.]
I have been called, “a little Hitler” and, “a ‘control-freak’”; and, that would fulfill in many instances for a parent, teacher, policeman, librarian, bank-teller—you know what I mean.
In a certain situation, an Australian commander bought a pig of the Buin. He pointed to one under his command who shot the pig. Bleeding and dead, the pig fell over. As concerning the rifle, The Buin were profoundly impressed; and the Australian commander gave the Buin leaders to understand that, if there was any further cannibalism, what occurred to the pig would befall them, also. And, that was the end of cannibalism in Papua New Guinea—the Australian commander, a typical ‘control freak’.
And, hey, while I can say that, we should sure be thankful for war, basically, I’m for peace, I’m for children, against abortion, . . . I’m a conservative; so, basically, yeah, about all I really do well, is say things which make some people mad, . . . depending, . . . but if as I suppose, probably, only because they’re just irritable, anyways, . . .
I love this piece—who wrote this, anyway?
Frank J. Fleming, . . . where’s he from, . . . I kind of know how he feels, . . .
Okay, well, “My Plan on How to Fight the Next Middle East War”, might begin now—yes, now—in that old British military tradition of “A Punitive Expedition”, . . . by telling Iran, to sail their flotilla home.
For orderly departure, I’d allow 2 days to loose the lines. That not done, I’d communicate to the commander and crew of the largest ship that, if all the ships hawsers were not loosed in 2hr., a tomahawk—or, so many tomahawk missiles as might be required—would (will) target the largest, amidships, and to be fired upon until it sank at harbor; thereafter, firing upon each successively largest ship which was not loosed, 1hr. between separate targetings—making windows of opportunity for the crews.
Elsewhere and at another time, I might offer the short explanation that, any military force which may be moving or operating under the aegis of rhetoric emanating from Iran’s present leadership, threatens danger, and thence, is constitutive of a destabilizing influence in that area.
At this moment, Iran’s leadership is acting in the cowardly way concerning some hostages. As their ambit in response, they might kill some hostages. In which case, with so few missiles as might be possible, I would first, remove or flatten the leadership’s houses, and then, any nuclear plants, governmental complexes, airbases which station military aircraft, and army or other military garrisons or complexes, allowing the flotilla to move as directed, or to be sunk.
And Mr. Fleming, . . . thank you.
All the while, the real problem is, of course, N Korea, . . .
Frank,
There is a much more obvious war doctrine that works 100% of the time. Only wage war when a Democrat is in office. There are very few complaints from the left, the right generally goes along and the world yawns. With this doctrine we can do whatever we want and it is praised as thoughtful, humane, cost effective and most importantly is viewed by the press as necessary and just.
Uh, this is actually called the Derbyshire Alternative (pronounced durb-a-sure, for you non-Anglophiles).
John Derbyshire [NRO] came up with this, like eight or nine years ago. He wasn’t being funny, either. He made a good case for why this was the better “plan”. Go in and break the offending country into itty-bitty-bits (i.e., kill the bad guys: and don’t stress over collateral damage, either). Leave, and let them settle out. If they screw up: do it again.
Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
It still resonates …with hard-core realists, at least.
I dinna think it’s funny at all: I think of it as tactically brilliant, and strategically effective.
Yes, this is pretty much Derbyshire’s “rubble doesn’t make trouble” scenario. The American people weren’t ready for it then, but they might be ready for it now. It’s IMO probably the best alternative for Iran. Many of the Arab countries might be best suited to alternative B, which is the neo-colonialism recommended by Paul Johnson (another Brit realist), which is essentially a reprise of the League of Nations “mandate” system of the 1920s and 1930s. This is probably the best alternative for Lebanon and Syria. The peoples of Europe are probably not ready for this now, but they might be soon.
Wait…this is *satire*? I was ready to dial in with my credit card so I could subscribe for the lifetime membership. Seriously, Bomb-A-Day Gift Services would be huge. Seriously, this approach has much to recommend it. I don’t recall the Romans doing any “nation-building” with Carthage. (Conveniently located next to modern Libya).
There is only one rule for warfare:
“Get in, or get out.”
Everything else is just polishing a t#rd.
@1 Jefferson: “back” to the stone age?
Actually, there is a game-theoretic, reputation-building basis for this type of policy. The serious threat of Islamic terrorism arises as a result of state sponsorship (a nuke attack, homemade or bought from a bad actor, requires state involvement). So, the first-order goal should be to stop Iranian, Saudi, Pakistani, etc., support of Islamist groups. Consider the following policy:
1. Any government found to be supporting Islamists is removed by force, courtesy the US military;
2. Following removal, US military exits. Local population sorts out new leadership however they wish;
3. If new leadership found to be supporting Islamists, repeat Steps 1-2.
If preceding policy consistently implemented, credible reputation for destroying threatening, tin-pot, Arab dictators established. Result: well-behaved tin-pot dictators (at least in terms of funding major anti-American initiatives).
Not obvious there are better alternatives …
“…tin pot dictators…”
As FDR famously said about whatever Somoza was running Nicaragua at the time:
“He might be an SOB, but he’s our SOB!”
culture dictates technology .
Strict muslim countries have a 900 B.C. set of values and are incapable of creating western technology (electronics, antibiotics). They should be left to enjoy the teachings of the prophet . We should NOT be buying the natural resources they squat upon which are worthless to them. The Saudi model clearly failed, massive wealth did not bring Al Sauds into the 20th century . Colonialism would have worked better, set up a small heavily armed trading post, extract what we want and trade morphine, telescopes and watches for any dates or racing camels we need.
Socialist countries are based upon marxism , they presuppose toiling proletariat in giant mills and tux clad capitalists in luxurious coaches.
Such countries get mass production but no modern electronics , drugs, computers cell phones etc.
Emabrgo according to cultural level. Aerial destruction of inappropriate technology seems a dandy plan.
Back in the good old Victorian days, imperialism (and I don’t mean that as a bad word) was a lot simpler: If the local lunatic of an emir, pasha, nawab, caudillo, or whatever got tiresome, you didn’t send your whole army in to give his country a makeover. You send your navy to shell his palace, and then you landed a handful of sailors or Marines to seize the customs house of his main port. (Back in the day, tariffs were most governments’ main revenue source.) The tariffs would then get paid to you, not the local despot. When he got tired of living on rice and beans, he’d offer peace terms, which you magnanimously accepted and left him alone until the next time.
Our future strategy in the Middle East should be the same: Seize the customs house, and make occupation pay. Not the literal customs house; even these backwards economies aren’t that simple anymore. But most Middle Eastern governments depend substantially on their state-controlled oil production. So take it. Most of the time, the oil production areas are separate from teeming, potential IED-infested cities. Grab ‘em, fence ‘em off, and start shipping oil, until the local guy agrees to take a well-funded retirement in Brunei or somewhere.
We’re going to be accused of fighting for oil whatever we do. Let’s at least get the benefit of the charge for a change.
We can bomb them back to the stone age, but for many of those countries that’s like losing an hour for daylight savings time. Rebuilding from the stone age to the 9th century just isn’t that hard.
Blowing up the hut, smashing the bucket and rearranging the dirt will keep them occupied for most of the morning, but by mid-afternoon they’ll be right back to sawing off heads and strapping bombs on their children. The only long term solution (other than moving Texas to Mars and then shoving the Earth into the Sun) is to blow up their cultures.
Force feed them Penthouse, Jack Daniels, Birth control pills and Locke’s Second Treatise on Civil Government. Plus lots and lots of basic cable TV. Come back in 50 years and it’ll look like a bad part of town off the Vegas Strip.
It must have been one of those days, but I had tears of laughter running down my cheeks by the time I got to the end of this post. Quite superb. Beautifully done, whoever you are.
On a more serious note, the purpose of war is to bring about peace, but first it must pass a culminating phase of violence. That’s how it works. War is the organising principle of mankind. The history of man is the history of war. That’s how mankind rolls. When the UN, or NATO, intervene in a war, all they are doing is allowing the protagonists to re-arm, re-group, re-organise, and recruit, thus prolonging the war, increasing the death toll, and destroying the country’s infrastructure to a greater extent than it otherwise would have been. Unfortunately, these interventions benefit the weak side most of all.
The whole point of war is that the strong beats the weak – then you have peace.
Thank you, that’s very kind. I was rather pleased with how that bit of writing turned out. When I get my own column sometime somewhere, I’ll try to keep you amused.
Two words.
Nuclear weaponry.
Watch how fast the rest of the world cleans up their act when you make it clear that becoming a haven for terrorism gets you nuked.
It all started to go bad when Jefferson sent the Marines to Tripoli.
I don’t know… I did not see a single reference on nuking to the moon. Without that any Frank J. plan is bound to fail.
I think we should call it “The Etch a Sketch Doctrine”.
Mr. Fleming, I think you should take your subject more seriously. This is lazy thinking and lazy writing, just so much more of the whining that you complain about from others. Frat boy stuff.
Anyone else thinking about that Iranian nuke program and the Fukushima nuclear plant? How Fukushima wasn’t done in by the quake damage, but rather by the lack of power?
It wouldn’t be all that difficult to JDAM the power supplies for the Iranian reactor, would it?
I agree with the author, bomb,conquer and leave the enemy devastated. Don’t stay and if they threatened us, bomb and bomb again! This way their leader will have no choice but to make peace with us. Or else………!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zr04FBKPS9E&feature=iv&annotation_id=annotation_14979
What if we could just cut out the middle man and wipe out a planet from orbit?
Bombing a country is nothing, but hanging around the country afterward, helping it rebuild and establish a system of government where the citizens don’t get bossed around by a homicidal dictator, gets us into trouble.
I remember when commentators criticized the United States for supporting coups that helped install autocrats that were friendly to America in place of dictators who were hostile. They said America should create functioning democracies in those countries instead.
I used to find it supremely ironic that when America does bend over backwards at enormous cost to help newly freed countries build democracies, America is hugely criticized for doing so. At least, I used to find it ironic.
Now, I realize that the Left – and particularly the American Left – simply hates America and would spew its noxious venom no matter what policy America attempted. There’s really no point in trying to follow the advice of Leftists in foreign policy or any policy at all. No matter what America does, the Left will denounce it as horrible, inhumane, selfish, evil, etc.
It’s not that the Left hates America; it’s that they hate everything that is not them. On second thought, they have a lot of self-hatred too. That pretty much leaves it that the Left just hates.
That is the most concise, accurate statement about the left I have ever seen. Spot on.
The best way for US to handle wars in the ME is just to stay out of it. Stop meddling in other countries, be it in the ME or elsewhere, pull her troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, stop supporting Israel and and other rogue nations.
Just keep to US domestic affairs. Concentrate on US economy and her people only. Don’t bother what happen outside US.
This way US saves money and the life of her soldiers. There will be no bombs dropped, no anti-US slogan and no anti-American demonstrations.
So the best approach to handle war in ME or anywhere is ‘Just mind your own business’. And nobody will touch you.
Meanwhile, the Islamists continue to call us “The Great Satan” (they refer to Israel as “The Lesser Satan”), continue to build nuclear weapons capabilities, continue to acquire other forms of WMD, and continue to plot, dream, plan, and eventually act to exterminate most of us “infidels”, and enslave the few they somehow fail to kill.
We didn’t pick a fight with the “MidEast”. Fourteen centuries ago, the culture there became aggressive, expansionist, and borderline psychopathic due to following the precepts of a “prophet” who may or may not have been a paranoid schizophrenic, was certainly a kleptomaniac, definitely pedophilic, and in summation was probably just plain crazy. They started invading, conquering, looting, and killing anybody they could reach then, and their “reach” extended to France by AD 715, when they got stopped hard by a chap named Charles Martel. Since then, they have repeatedly attacked everybody they could get within range of whenever they felt like it and/or thought they could get away with it.
Somehow, I’m reminded of the advice I got about bullies as a kid. I was told “just ignore them and they’ll go away”. What actually happened was that if they thought I was “ignoring them”, they escalated (“Have I got your attention NOW, f***er?”).
(Trivia note ; Recent studies have shown that contrary to pop psychology beliefs of the 1960s, most bullies are egotists, not low-self-esteem sufferers. They believe that others must kowtow to them because they are just so incredibly fantastic- in their own imaginations. For this reason, I suspect many politicians were bullies in childhood.)
And oh yes, I was also told by my oh-so-wise elders (teachers, both parents, etc.) that “fighting never solved anything”.
After the umpteenth time I ended up in the school nurse’s office with a bloody nose, two black eyes, and various contusions, I took up Jujitsu and, later, Tae Kwon Do.
After that, I still got the occasional shiner, but the other guy always looked worse.
The moral being, wishing doesn’t make problems go away. And if someone is determined to hurt you for their own (usually crazy) reasons, trying to be “reasonable” just gets you hurt worse.
clear ether
eon
#28 Thomas
Thank you for your more erudite way of saying “KICK THEIR ASS AND STEAL THEIR GAS.”
Anything less allows for future bad behavior.
Dr. Shalit
“… abolish… the threat of Islam, by dividing it against itself in its very heart. There will be a Khalifa in Tur*key and a Khalifa in Arabia, in theological warfare, and Islam will be as little formidable as the Papacy when Popes lived in Avignon.” T. E Lawrence 1916.
What is better for us – A collection of despots like Saddam, Quadaffi, etc., or a monolithic caliphate?
We did win in Afghanistan. We won in the first year we were there. We disrupted the terror training camps, we took the terrorists to GITMO and the ones we did not catch ran into Pakistan and Iran. WE SHOULD HAVE LEFT RIGHT THEN, and left then with the warning that if they let terrorists back into their midst, WE ARE COMING BACK.
If we had done this our military would have been sitting at home or the last 9 years resting and training, just in case we had to go back.
There is nothing let to win in Afghanistan, we kicked ass, now let’s come home, we can always go back if we have to, and if they do not want us there they will keep the terrorists out on their own.
Iraq and Libya too and then get ready for the big one once the Moslems re-group and come after the West, contrary to the belief and wishes of our PC light hearted ‘peace’ loving huggy friends on the left. Ashes to Ashes…etc.
“And we could literally hit a button and obliterate any of those countries anytime we want. We wouldn’t, because that would be super mean — but it wouldn’t hurt to remind people we have the ability.”
^^^This… making an example of one of these turdish enclaves will allow the deterrent factor to have some merit
I have been pushing for an annual carpet bombing in Afghanistan for years. That is all that is required. No boots on the ground. There is nothing there to rebuild. It is like trying to domesticate ants.
Same goes for all the Muslim countries where a depressing but magical religion makes it’s zombie like followers want to kill and die in any order.
Nation building in the middle east is a pointless exercise. The very nature of middle eastern culture ensures that some sort of strong man/ dictator/ totalitarian theocracy will come to power. If someone were to kill Quadaffi and his family today it would only be a matter of time before Libya was once again ruled by an evil, power mad brute ala Saddam. The only question is would he be a secular or religious evil nut.
If you want peace in the middle east you will have to genetically engineer a mosquito that causes men bitten by it to become sterile then release masses of the things in Muslim countries. Just make sure you develop a cure first for the rest of us. Peace and an end to wide spread terrorism will come about 20 or 30 years after that.
“And keep on having to do it, getting nothing out of it. The Brits never had peace with the natives until they took the place over, or some other power did. There is no such thing as a crushing military point without regime change and nation building, unless the blow is so crushing it amounts to depopulation, genocide.”
EXACTLY. “I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.” Ellen Ripley, Aliens 1986
All about Mr. Oil and Ms. Gas
The purpose of war is to bring about peace, but first it must pass a culminating phase of violence. That’s how it works. War is the organising principle of mankind. The history of man is the history of war. That’s how mankind rolls. When the UN, or NATO, intervene in a war, all they are doing is allowing the protagonists to re-arm, re-group, re-organise, and recruit, thus prolonging the war, increasing the death toll, and destroying the country’s infrastructure to a greater extent than it otherwise would have been. Unfortunately, these interventions benefit the weak side most of all.
Why not an idea on how to achieve peace with the middle east?
Bush is out. Obama is worse.
yes please!
It was just a couple of years ago that gasoline was around $1 and now it is over $3 everywhere. Obviously some people are getting very rich somewhere. These same people that are going to war are the ones lining their pcokets with money.