(This is a long post, but I think it’s important enough that you read all of it… obviously; otherwise I wouldn’t have posted it.)
The full consequence of the decision by President Obama to depart Afghanistan on a predetermined date seems not yet to have been understood fully.
This decision has ramifications far beyond Afghanistan, NATO, or the American Left and Right.
With this decision, President Obama is telling a compliant military that, should an unspoken (unwanted?) victory not have been reached by his pre-determined date of withdrawal, any future deaths in-theater – as well as all deaths and injuries to-date – will have been in vain.
This is not a statement made lightly. It is an indictment of our military leaders acquiescing to and defending this decision as much as it is of our President.
Morale already is falling in-theater, and across the military. Knowing the Commander-In-Chief will order the troops to leave the field to, as he puts it, “end” the war on a date-specific, will only accelerate the drop in morale. What kind of leader would send men out on a patrol knowing some will be killed when their CINC already has stated the date at which he will “end” the war?
What kind of man would obey that order? On that patrol he may kill some other human being… for what?
It also will cause this morale drop to rise from the grunt in the field to the local commanders, the field officers sending men out to die for nothing, and the General and Admiral Officer Corps of America’s military services.
One does not “end” a war if one believes in the cause. It is as simple as that. If one believes in the cause, one wins. Ending a war without victory, and surrendering in the field, is a distinction without a difference. And if one doesn’t believe in the cause, why is one willing to kill and to die for it?
But – what are the ramifications of surrender? Al-Qaida and Islamist terrorists will trumpet to their followers that they have won, that they have – again – beaten a modern military machine.
We can scoff at that all we want here in our post-industrial society. But they are right.
One wins a war in one of two ways: Defeating the enemy. Outlasting the enemy.
America outlasted the Brits in the Revolution. North Vietnam outlasted America in 1975. In neither case was the adversary defeated.
OK. So what? So a bunch of 7th-Century tribalists tell their followers they have “beaten” the United States, the most powerful military machine in history?
Our military leaders, our senior and junior officers, the Cadets at West Point, USAFA and the Naval Academy, will understand that the mission of the American military no longer is to win wars. It is simply a diplomatic tool to be misused by the civilian leadership and, when Democrats are in power, that leadership cares not-at-all about their lives.
Morale will plummet. People no longer will be willing to serve. Intelligent people will no longer be willing to lead. One of the best reactions I have seen to the speech at USMA was this: “Where are the four star resignations?”
Understand – Obama and the Left desire this outcome.
Once the military begins shrinking, as the military institutions begin preaching that future wars will be “psycho-cultural,” as its civilian leaders begin to be unwilling to commit large forces to combat, the American military will resemble European militaries. This is a “good thing” according to the Left. Europeanizing America is their overriding goal. But it is not defensible.
Militaries exist to kill people and break things. War begins when diplomacy fails. War is a last resort – but it must be a resort – unless you already have given up.
Europe has already given up; they gave up at the Somme and it took another generation to completely neuter themselves into the civilizational stupor they inhabit today. They have no militaries worthy of the name, they have no way to transport or to feed them in the field. They refuse to go into combat. And their leaders refuse to fight. War, for them, is NOT an option – there is NOTHING for which Europeans are willing to kill or to die.
How sad is that?
Will the Islamist terrorist stop with Afghanistan? Will they stop with South Asia? Africa?
They will have defeated America and the USSR in one generation. Their “religion” tells them they must conquer the world. Once America has left the field because the enemy is just “too hard” to fight, will any other power – can any other power – stand up to them ? Will they ever again be met with force in the field?
And they know this.
Wait – we can always go after them again in the future, right?
Once America’s military begins to resemble a large police force with men and leaders putting diversity and cultural awareness over victory, there really will be no “military” left to speak of. Right now the only country in the world that can deploy – or transport to a field of battle – large numbers of combat troops, is America. Should America Europeanize its military, how will any future force get to the fight? Why will our future forces be any different from their European counterparts – who so often NOW are unwilling to be deployed in a combat role. Canada’s army is smaller than the NYPD. Is that what we want to protect the West?
But – we’ll always have the sea and air transport capability to move large numbers of military forces, right?
Once healthcare passes, the money now funding our military will be needed to fund healthcare. One can’t imagine Pelosi or Obama or Frank or Dodd or Boxer choosing guns when they have just promised butter – and need to pay for it.
(Tangentially, the American taxpayer already is paying for the defense of the West and enabling nationalized healthcare across the West. This is explained here.)
Or are we content with the fight coming here?
As Obama wrote in his book, “I will stand with them [the Muslims] should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” Maybe we should be paying attention.
OK. So our military will be enormously degraded. Islamist fundamentalist violence will be on the rise globally. With America unwilling to fight it, with America already having been outlasted on the field of battle, will Western Civilization be able to stop it?
Islam has a birthrate of over twice the West. Demographics wins. EVERY SINGLE TIME.
If Islam is not contained in much the same way we contained the USSR and Communism, Islam will overtake the West. That’s an incontrovertible fact. It doesn’t much matter if you like or accept it.
Is it important that Western Civilization survive?
Not to the left, no.
These are the same people who preach “multiculturalism,” yet demand American rights, freedoms, environmental policies from everyone. They have taken Western Civ from the classrooms. To them, American – or Western, for that matter – exceptionalism is a four-letter word.
But – that’s OK, right? We’ll all get along once Obama has apologized to the world for America keeping the peace for 65 years, right?
No. Islam has advanced through the sword. Convert or die. Read your history and don’t filter through a Western lens. All other cultures do NOT think as we do. Christianity has three overarching points that just don’t exist in any other culture or civilization: Free Will (not in Islam), Turn the other Cheek (not in Islam) and, perhaps most importantly, “Then give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” (Luke 20:25) (Certainly not in Islam.)
I am not a bible-thumper, but not understanding the centrality of this one sentence to Western Civilization means you really don’t understand Western Civ – or the problems with Islam. This one line in the Bible is at the root of church-state separation in Western Civilization, and makes Western Culture absolutely and unalterably different from Islam.
This non-separation of church and state within Islam also is why I refer to it as a “quasi-religion.” To Westerners (and “religion” is a Western word) “religion” means a faith system that may or may not inform one’s daily lives, allows free will, and is separate and distinct from government. “Then give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s,” defines “religion” for Westerners as something NOT government. For Islam, this concept, this thought process, this foundational understanding simply does not exist. There is NO difference between mosque and state, so in a Western view, it is NOT a true “religion,” but a quasi-religion, an admixture of church and state and army and law all rolled up into one. Until and unless America and her leaders accept this fundamental truth, we will be unable – at the national level – to recognize our enemy.
Hard for some to believe, but no, people DON’T all think alike, and projecting one’s cultural heritage onto another – which is what the Left does with “multiculturalism,” is dangerous – it is becoming existentially dangerous for the West.
For “multiculturalists” or others to treat Islam as a “religion” in the Western sense is ignorant – and foolish.
Islam also is an old quasi-religion. It was formed –and is not allowed to advance from – the 7th-Century tribal deserts of the Arabian Peninsula. Why is this important? Because it has to do with Islam’s growth, its culture and its future.
Christianity, again, has a foundational precept of turning the other cheek. Islam has a foundational precept of do-it-my-way-or-I’ll-kill-you. Islam is a primitive “quasi-religion” that has flourished because it gives power to the powerful.
Think about that. In the Western tradition might does NOT make right. Right makes right. “The meek shall inherit the earth,” is a primary sentiment in the Christian Bible. Americans traditionally cheer for the underdog, for David over Goliath. THIS IS WHY.
It took millennia of advancement to get to the point at which men and women– society’s powerful and weak – were equal. But if you’re a poor, tribal man in an ancient tribal society and along comes a “religion” that tells you that you – the powerful man – are always to be ever-powerful over women and other weak ones or anyone who disagrees with you, what’s not to like? Now you not only have physical authority over women due to innate strength, but you have moral and spiritual authority, due to the Koran, as well.
‘Do it my way or die’ becomes a perfectly valid, moral, justifiable, acceptable way forward.
Is it bad if Islam wins? After all, the West has done so many horrible things. Like invent the polio vaccine, the railroad, steam power, internal combustion, harnessing electricity, developing nuclear power, the bicycle, the car, the scientific method. Like end slavery in the West. Like free tens of millions from tyranny and keep tens of millions more free.
Hell, yes, it’s bad if Islam wins.
Maybe if you have no children you really don’t care. Democrats, of course, don’t have children. I am slowly coming to the conclusion that having kids v. not having kids creates an unbridgeable difference in worldviews. If this were NOT true, why would Red states be growing and Blue States (and Western Europe, Russia, Japan) all be declining in population? Why would Republicans – who have kids – see the world so differently, and care so much more about future freedoms and liberties, than Democrats?
If you dislike the West, and are unprepared to meet Islamist terror on the field of battle, you can say goodbye to women’s rights, children’s rights, environmental policies, science, the environment.
Do you seriously believe Islam gives a damn about, say, Climate Change? Climate change requires the scientific method to observe and to fight. (I am taking this example because of its prevalence and because the Left hugely believes in the myth, not because it is accurate or true. But the point remains.)
Will the Left understand that losing – for that is what Obama has chosen – will result in a world in which the scientific method matters not-at-all? In which the ONLY thing that matters is what Muhammad wrote in a book over a millennia ago?
Don’t believe me? My brother taught Physics with the Peace Corps at the University of Kabul in Afghanistan in 1977. The moon? Smaller than the space between your thumb and finger – look at it and see for yourself! Allah said so. Land on it? Don’t be ridiculous.
The Left may not realize it, but the victory of Islam is the death-knell of Liberals, as well. Simply, there is no room for liberalism, rule of law, democracy or Free Will in Sharia. None at all. Separation of Church and State? No state religion? Hah!
Islam is a pre-Inquisition, pre-Enlightenment, pre-Reformation quasi-religion. If you don’t believe in the cultural, societal, scientific, philosophical progress of post-Enlightenment societies, then you should support Obama’s decision. For that is where we are headed. It’s where he is leading – or dragging – us.
But if you do support the freedom and liberty, the progress of philosophy and culture following the Enlightenment and the Reformation, then Obama’s decision is appalling.
Obama’s decision can only have been made, and can only be respected by those who are either ignorant of the magnitude of those events… or are pre-Enlightenment thinkers themselves. Islamists, by definition, are pre-Enlightenment thinkers. It is logically impossible for a post-Enlightenment person to follow the fundamentalist, anti-scientific, anti-human rights world of the Islamist. Again – it doesn’t matter if you accept this any more than it matters that you accept gravity.
Democrats pride themselves on being post-Enlightenment. If this were true, why will they not defend the Enlightenment or Reformation? Why are they willing to support a culture – as the equal of our own – that remains locked in the Inquisition?
President Obama’s decision to leave the field, coupled to a military unable or unwilling to adhere to their Constitutional Oath and depose him, coupled to the birthrate of Islam… means far more than bringing home the troops.
It, indeed, means the end of history. And this time not in a good, modern, Enlightened way, but in a brutal, tribal, anti-modern, anti-women way.
These are the consequences of Obama’s decision to surrender to the Islamists.
Obama’s decision – not America’s, not even that of the Congress – is the capitulation of America – and the West – to a pre-Enlightenment Islam.
The question I keep asking – and I’ve served in the Air Force – attended the Air Force Academy, by the way – is this: Why is the military not living up to its oath?
Every person who ever has been in the military takes an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.” Not to defend the President. Not to defend the Congress. To DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION.
With this last speech at West Point, it is past clear that Obama is a domestic enemy of our Constitution, of America, of the West and its freedoms and liberties.
Some say that the military is subject to civilian leadership, so it’s really illogical and impossible for them to remove their civilian Commander-in-Chief.
Not really. This perception is flawed. Responsible officers need to get over it.
Their OATH is to defend the Constitution. It is FROM that document that all power flows – including the Chain-of-Command. If the military doesn’t protect the Constitution, we don’t have a Republic and the military becomes only a power source for a civilian government doing whatever it wants, including neutering the military – which is what Obama wants – and what he is doing.
And THAT is called “Tyranny.”
The Constitution trumps civilian authority when that civilian authority is overthrowing the Constitution.
That’s why the oath.
No other reading of the Constitution and the oath results in a democratic republic or a government of, by and for the people.
Obama is an enemy. He must be deposed.
And the sooner the military acts, the less bloodshed and the more liberty there will be.
It is becoming increasingly difficult to see this ending non-violently. But the military probably still has a few months to fix the problems. Beyond that? If the New Black Panthers and ACORN are able to steal the 2010 election, or to make it look to many of us as if it had been stolen?
It probably won’t be non-violent after that.
Most of America values their post-Enlightenment world, its freedoms and liberties, and most of America has kids and so cares about the future.
Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank may not care. San Francisco and Chicago and Manhattan and Boulder may not care. MoveOn.org doesn’t care.
But the rest of us do.