Change Requires Change Agents & Islam Hasn’t Any

In every group of people – nation, religion, Rotary Club, PTA, etc. – three major subgroups exist: Leaders/Activists, Followers and Change Agents. The largest group, Followers, as expected by the definition, is too apathetic to support outright either the Leaders or the Change Agents, but implicitly is supportive of the Leaders by not joining the Change Agents, by not ruffling any feathers and by letting the Leader/Activist cohort take the group wherever it wants.

This is pretty pedestrian stuff: Lead, Follow or Get Out of the Way.

In islam these three groups can be defined as:

  1. Leaders/Activists: ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hamas, the PLO, etc. – and those who provide moral and material/materiel support (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Democrats, etc.)
  2. Change Agents: a group in islam which may exist only anecdotally, as in “some of my best neighbors/doctors/friends are muslim,” but, as per definition, is too small to effect change (if it exists at all).
  3. Followers: those in basic agreement with the Leaders/Activists, the majority in every Western survey of muslims regarding the place of sharia over Western Civilization and the Rule of Law, but too lazy to participate. They are not leading and they are not changing.

The point is that the idea that moderate muslims exist is based on the erroneous idea that the large Follower cohort is part of the Change Agent group when, in fact, it supports the Leader/Activist cohort via inertia. The goal which Followers implicitly support is islamism, sharia, and the overturning of Western Rule of Law, Self-government, Individual Liberty and Human Rights.

If Followers were, as Western progs demand, “moderate”, and so interested in getting along with, rather than conquering, the West, they’d be Change Agents. By their numbers alone we’d see change, perhaps an Enlightenment bringing islam into modernity and out of the Dark Ages to which its Leaders/Activists have, for centuries, demanded it return (see What Went Wrong, by Bernard Lewis), against which the Followers have put up negligible resistance, and the only Change Agent of note, Ataturk, is dead and Erdogan is busy overturning his every change.

By not being Change Agents, Followers support the Leaders, whose goal is the 7th-Century world of barbaric totalitarianism the West has fought millennia to leave behind. (Why progs think another millennia of carnage to get back to where we are now is a good idea is never explained.)

The West must acknowledge that the overwhelming supermajority of this cult of islam is opposed to Western Civilization, and that the only salient difference between the Leader/Activist and Follower cohorts is the level of violence to which they are – today – willing to subject the greater world.

For moral and material progress to continue islam must change. Lacking Change Agents, it cannot, so must be removed. For the entire civilized world, the sooner the better. Erasing their major centers of funding and ideology can do this. Nothing else will or can in any competitive timeframe. “Competitive” as in the competition between islam and the Rest (West, China, Russia, India), which is accelerating and which will have only one winner.

The West can continue to lose irreplaceable human capital by fighting dumb, localized combat with conventional weapons and strategies & tactics, and lose any war of attrition with a people having nothing better to do. (We always lose our wars of attrition; why would this one be any different?)

Or we can annihilate these centers and allow the remainder of the cult to evaporate over a few generations. The indisputable fact that Followers – are, and that no Change Agents exist in the proper target locales (Mecca, Medina, Qom, Quetta, etc.), removes any justification for not annihilating these centers of ideology immediately. There are no “innocent bystanders” in the Follower cohort.

The former is what we are doing now.

The latter is the mature, moral and responsible answer.

A Third choice exists: China or Russia annihilating islam as an existential threat to them or, as they modernize, to their needed Western markets. Unless America wants world leadership to move East, it would be good if we became the necessary Change Agent before they do.

 

Posted in Foreign Policy and International, War and Terrorism | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Changing the Rules

When one takes the long look of history, two errors of Western Civilization stand out above all others.

The first, US entry into WW1, birthed the USSR, Weimar Republic, NAZIs, WW2 ETO, Red China, Cold War, Korea & Vietnam, and Left hundreds of millions dead.

The second, Kuwait, with a familial epilogue of Afghanistan & Iraq, destroyed S Asia & the Middle East, created the largest immigration outside of war in human history and is in the process of destroying European civilization and attacking America.

Both of these mistakes were by individuals insisting on defining the roles of other nations and were none of our business: Wilson(D) the first, Bush 41 & 43 (R) the second.

It is likely these men will go down as the worst presidents in our history, and among the great destroyers of civilizations, cultures & societies.

The question, then: How do we prevent recurrence? I suggest that rejecting conventional warfare entirely, building DOWN our conventional capability to intentionally preclude this interventionist destruction, and re-adopting Ike’s MR, is the only way to do so.

Our reasons for massive conventional capability have been twofold; neither anymore exists:

  1. To fight two regional wars concurrently (we are unable/unwilling – a distinction without a difference – to fight one to successful cousin, e.g. Victory)
  2. To prevent a Russian thrust into Europe. Having surrendered its demographic future, it should be evident that not even Europeans care about their future – so why would we?

Right now we have some General testifying we can’t leave Afghanistan for fear of attacks here. Really? Forever? This is nothing but “empire building” in the business sense: large budgets & TO&E.

We find ourselves in a perfect time and place, with the perfect president (a non-ideological pragmatist) to implement MR. The deserts of Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan & SWAT hold few people, fewer peaceful people, and nothing of importance to the outside world. We have a Western population past fed-up with the hornets whose nest we have disturbed.

Announce MR, drop a few tactical nukes on ISIS & al Qaeda, tell the world we aren’t going to ever again be un-serious in war, and quit spending hundreds of billions on conventional systems & forces.

As Ike asked, “How many schools did that bomber cost?”

As long as we leave presidents with a choice of less-than-catastrophic destruction of our enemies, they will use it in pursuit of goals not worth fighting for (proven by not even trying to win), and the results will be as we see above.

Move to MR, remove the ability to wage conventional war in even regional theaters. Or our presidents will continue to wage dumb, small wars that will prove catastrophic over time – and give our competitors (Russia: Crimea, Ukraine, Georgia…) implicit permission to do the same.

Posted in Domestic, Foreign Policy and International, Politics, War and Terrorism | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Acknowledging Our Pertinent History

It is a truism that the window breakers and car-fire setters are ignorant of history. Too many of us are. The Right, having allowed the Left to take academia in full-frontal assault in the 1960s, its ramparts undefended by adults who ought to have known better, bears more than a bit of blame for this.

Nonetheless, the history that adults find it tiring that the Left refuses to grasp (“Progressive” policies that have been tried in every geography, culture and time always degrade, rather than improve, human lives) is only half, and not the most important half, of the history pertinent at this juncture.

The history with which all of us, but particularly the Left, need to become reacquainted is the history of Western resistance to totalitarianism.

The West, the most physically, morally and economically powerful civilization in the history of the known universe got that way through violent resistance to and destruction of totalitarianism.

Greece defeated Persia. The Roman Republic defeated Carthage. In more modern times, the West that descended from these civilizations has fought for the same reasons those ancestors fought: Freedom, Liberty, the Rule of Law and Self-Government.

We have fought totalitarians within our own civilization as hot wars (Britain v. Napoleonic France, America v. Britain (twice), the Allies v. Germany (twice), the Allies v. Japan, and many others). As we have grown so powerful that hot wars can kill us all we have fought against totalitarianism outside our civilization as Cold Wars.

We have won these wars. All of them. For thousands of years.

The Left today seems to forget this. They seem not to know that when it comes down to all the marbles, to liberty for ourselves and our posterity, our patience evaporates. Brexit and Trump both are signs that our patience is close to doing so now, signs that, like a rattler’s rattle, should not be ignored.

Patiently finding footpaths around totalitarians blocking our paths in ridiculously infantile vagina costumes, patiently waiting in cars as our roads to work and the hospital are blocked, patiently watching on our TV screens as Leftist rioters throw rocks, break windows and burn our schools, and riot against the enforcement of duly-passed immigration laws, with the goal of destroying Freedom, Liberty, the Rule of Law and Self-Government only will last for so long.

Churchill famously said, “You can always count on the Americans to do the right thing after they have tried everything else.” And we Americans have tried just about “everything else” to stop the totalitarianism under which the Left violently is demanding to enslave us.

Just about.

The aftermath of the 2016 election is the most violent in our history, absent the Civil War. Who won that? Those fighting for human liberty.

If the Left keeps this up, if anarchy and rising resistance to the Rule of Law – to Western Civilization itself – continue, it is erroneous to think that those of us who care about the future enough to populate it will not lose our patience.

The Left can continue to riot, burn and break, demanding to enslave us. The Left can and, I’m sure, will become more and more violent.

Not arresting rioters for felony rioting and imprisoning them for the maximum allowable terms is an ill-advised rejection of the Rule of Law on the part of the adults, just as it was in the 1960s when the same cohort assaulted our schools.

We are under the Rule of Law only if it is enforced.

The Left, however, should google the history of Western liberty. There are bumps in the road, yes, but liberty always wins.

Why?

Because we who demand liberty stand, as we have stood for thousands of years, ready to kill Liberty’s enemies in whatever numbers we deem necessary to ensure her primacy.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Immorality of Not Using Our Most Productive Weapons in War

The purpose of war is to alter the behavior of an opponent. The fewer lives lost in doing so the better. One not only should strive to lose as few of one’s own lives as possible, one should strive to kill as few of the enemy as necessary to achieve the goal of altering his behavior, and to ensure a post-war peace. The latter may require killing many more of the enemy than the former, which was why Eisenhower pursued his “Broad Front” strategy rather than just race to Berlin as Patton wanted. Such a “Broad Front” would have been a far better strategy in reducing Iraq than the race to Baghdad, and for the same reasons.

Nuclear weapons – far and away – are the most productive of weapons. Contrary to popular feeling and conventional wisdom – and to Dr. Strangelovian fantasies – these weapons save lives. They always have and always will.

In 1945, President Truman could have accepted the Navy’s estimate of Japanese dead in an invasion (9M), or the Army’s (5M), added that to the estimate of American KIA (1M), and pulled the trigger on an invasion estimated by men who had been fighting this enemy for 3-1/2 years that would cost between 6M and 10M human lives, and last until 1949, the then-current planning estimate.

Instead, Truman dropped two of what would today be considered tactical nukes (15-21KT), and killed an estimated 400,000 Japanese (the immediate estimate + estimated radiation victims over the next four months), and zero (0) Americans. (Full disclosure: my dad fought in the Pacific Theater of WW2.)

The only thing that matters in war is the size of the bang; not what made it. Nuclear weapons are productive; conventional weapons are not. Rather than go with my opinion on the morality of using these weapons, the following is from Quartered Safe Out Here, an excellent battlefield memoir of the China-Burma-India theater of WW2 by a British Private Soldier who became best-selling author, George MacDonald Fraser (of the Flashman series of historical novels).

Fraser published his memoir in 1992, decades removed from the field of battle. In the final chapter he described his feelings regarding Hiroshima and Nagasaki, introducing the topic via a 1990s bar discussion with one his own age who had not fought in the war. As Fraser’s words are the best I have found regarding using these weapons by the men who fought that enemy and who may have died in their absence, I quote him at length.

The dropping of the bombs was a hideous thing, and I do not wonder that some of those who bore a part in it have been haunted by it all their lives. If it was not barbaric, the word has no meaning. …

And so it was not only their lives, as I pointed out to my antibomb disputant. To reduce it to a selfish, personal level… if the bombs had been withheld, and the war had continued on conventional lines, then even if I’d failed my [promotion] board and gone with the battalion into Malaya, the odds that I’d have survived: 4 to 1 actuarially speaking, on the [squad’s] Burma fatalities. But I might have been that one, in which case my three children and six grandchildren would never have been born. And that, I’m afraid, is where all discussion of pros and cons evaporates and becomes meaningless, because for those nine lives I would pull the plug on the whole Japanese nation and never even blink. And so, I dare suggest, would you. And if you wouldn’t, you may be nearer to the divine than I am but you sure as hell aren’t fit to be parents or grandparents.

Since 1945, and for the first time in history, a nation has rejected the use of its most productive weaponry to defend itself and its citizens. This is among the larger moral failures ever undertaken by a Great Power.

Millions have died – unnecessarily – because of the refusal of American presidents to use America’s most productive weapons; their willingness, instead, to trade the lives of their citizens – and of their enemies – for the ego of leaders who want to be seen as strong war presidents, but who refuse to destroy our enemies and win our wars. (A nation’s enemy is the opposing nation. Armies are just policy tools. Killing an army does not win a war: I give you Iraq today.)

Americans killed over 2M Koreans and 54K Americans in that “limited war.” Had America chosen a tactical nuke strike on Pyongyang in 1950, would two-plus million lives have been destroyed? No.

Americans killed about 2M Vietnamese and 58K Americans in that “limited war.” Had America chosen a tactical nuke strike on Hanoi in 1964 (the same time our government was lying to us about the Tonkin Gulf), would two-plus million lives have been destroyed? No.

In the decades since Korea and Vietnam, how many tax dollars from how many nations have been spent dealing with the military and civil repercussions from not having won those wars? How much higher would be regional living standards (and America’s) had trillions not been spent containing those we refused to defeat? That, too, is a cost of not using our most advanced weaponry, to say nothing of the societal and cultural split in America that will long-outlive those who fought in it.

North Koreans are eating grass and starving to death because America refused to use nukes and win the war.

Nor did it ensure a more just and prosperous peace. Who was freer, wealthier, better-educated and a better ally 20 years later? Japan in 1965… or Pyongyang in 1973, or Hanoi in 1995? Does anyone believe Afghanistan or Iraq will be free economic, political and military allies in 2040, 20 years after we leave?

Weapons don’t win wars. Willpower wins wars.

A president who does not want to win a war he fights (and this applies both to Bush43 and Obama, just as it applied to both Truman in Korea and LBJ in Vietnam), has no business sending men to kill and to die. A president choosing to have the men he commands killed mercilessly on a battlefield by an enemy he can annihilate with no Americans killed, wounded or maimed, has no business leading a nation.

Not to choose the most productive weapons is to choose the immorality of sending men to die when alternatives exist.

 

Let’s look at a specific, current example:

Perhaps as many as 40,000 Yazidi took refuge on Sinjar Mountain, Ninawa, Iraq, surrounded by ISIS. How many did ISIS slaughter? No one knows, but hundreds a day were reported for a time. Women, children, men, shot in the head. Throats slit.

Sinjar Mountain rises 1,480 meters above the surrounding plains, plains in which ISIS encamped for days, first waiting, and then slaughtering thousands of human beings.

What did America do? Almost nothing of consequence to ISIS, or of value to the Yazidi:

“Central Command says the nine airstrikes conducted so far had destroyed or damaged four armored personnel carriers, seven armed vehicles, two Humvees and an armored vehicle.”

We “damaged or destroyed” 14 vehicles. Nine airstrikes. 9.

It would be embarrassing if it weren’t so tragic.

What would the moral alternative have been?

The closest towns or villages to Sinjar Mountain are ten kilometers away. The bottom of the mountain on which the Yazidi sheltered is over 2km away horizontally at its nearest distance from the village of Kursi and the relatively flat areas at the top of the mountain on which the Yazidi were sheltering.

One of American’s current tactical nuclear weapons, the W80, has an adjustable yield as low at 5KT, less than one third that of the Hiroshima weapon (15.2KT).

What is the lethal blast radius for a 5KT warhead detonated at the optimum altitude for a soft target such as the ISIS encampments? We look here and discover the following:

  • Radius for 3rddegree burns: 1.3 kilometers
  • Air blast radius (widespread destruction): 1.3 kilometers
  • Air blast radius (near-total fatalities): 476 meters
  • Fireball radius: 40-80 meters.

Striking an enemy encamped 2 km away, 1400 meters lower and behind the shielding mountain shoulder, with a weapon having a blast radius of 500-1300 meters, would have annihilated the enemy and not harmed the Yazidi.  And it need not have been an airburst. A surface burst would reduce each of these distances, further protecting the Yazidi.

A tactical strike by an available weapon, centered on the ISIS encampments at the bottom of the mountain, would have done three things:

  1. Annihilated the ISIS encampment
  2. Saved the Yazidi
  3. Made a statement regarding serious of purpose that cannot be made any other way.

It is time, past time, to get serious. To stop getting our guys killed. To stop pretending their people are more important than ours.  To stop putting a barbaric and savage society above the lives of our men & women – and the children they will never have, at an unknowable cost in human capital.

Posted in Foreign Policy and International, War and Terrorism | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Strengthening our Conventional Military



This is an interesting column on conventional military structure and results. It is at best tangential to the discussion that must take place.

There’s a larger problem, and that is a nation for the first time in history choosing the sacrifice of its soldiers over the use of its most productive weapons. Ike announced his policy of “Massive Retaliation” and kept us out of war his entire time in office. An acquaintance at the National War College states bluntly that MR is the only reason Parisians don’t speak Russian today.

Re-adopting MR will reduce our defense budgets, rid us of nation building nonsense, get the military industrial complex and its neocon supporters out of the way (no need for multi billion dollar new toys), and once we show seriousness – by using 1-2 tactical nukes on Isis – reduce to near-zero the need to use them again.

Too many fail to grasp that the estimated killed in an invasion of Japan was 1M Americans and 9M (USN est) or 5M (Army) Japanese. Only about 400K died and no Americans. Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved 6-10M lives. Had we nuked Pyongyang in 1950, or Hanoi in 1963, we’d not have killed 2M Koreans, 2M Vietnamese or 100K Americans.

Constant conventional war, both in preparation (budgets & toys) and execution (iron bombs, bullets, avgas, lives) is far more expensive than the -far- more productive alternative.

The continued reliance on conventional warfare is the most immoral decision American leaders make – and they’ve been making it since 1950.

There is no excuse for it. It must stop.

Posted in Domestic, Politics, War and Terrorism | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment