Be nice if America (and the West) again were led by adults. History shows that the longer one waits to confront an enemy, the more costly in blood and treasure when finally that confrontation arrives. And, as France and other nations learned in WW2, with delayed confrontation may not come victory or even national survival.
Nations wage war against adversaries whose behavior they deem sufficiently bad to warrant stopping it. Waging war means destroying the enemy polity – not just their military, which is only a tool for combat, only a small part of waging war – but the polity that created, accepted, fed, armed, trained, housed, transported the adversary and its deeds. Yes, this means not only that civilians will die, but that they must because the goal is more important than the pretense that any leadership could come to rule absent the explicit or implicit acceptance of the polity at large. The Allies did not worry about civilian deaths in WW2 because the goal was to win the war. Now that we can’t even shoot women carrying ammo to fighters killing Americans, one must wonder – what is our goal?
We understood this in WW2. From the ashes of the Treaty of Versailles and an obviously not-won war (Germany never occupied nor made dependent on its conquerors), the generation of leaders in WW2 – FDR, Churchill, Marshal, MacArthur, Eisenhower, etc. – understood that to gain peace, war – REAL war – must be waged and the enemy polities destroyed.
The goal was unconditional surrender, the means total destruction and the result over a half-century of Japan and Germany being political, economic and military allies.
No one ever will be able to say the same re: Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq or any other place where America pretended that limited combat could achieve any lasting result other than dead Americans and the loss of their never-to-be-born offspring.
Had we adult leaders, when Osama made it to Tora Bora – miles from any town, village, farm or inhabitant, we would have take off the top several hundred meters of Tora Bora with nukes. And thousands of Afghan and coalition troops would have been saved. We would have drawn a line that said: no farther – and shown that we meant it.
Are Iran’s nuke facilities too deep to be destroyed by conventional weapons? Probably. So what?
If the trade becomes America or Israel using nuclear weapons to stop Iran’s doing so, what is the problem?
Either Iran needs to be stopped – or not. This is a binary issue. All that matters is the size of the bang. How that bang is created – as long as it stops Iran – is completely immaterial and irrelevant.
Are our current “leaders” willing to look at a post-nuclear-attack Jerusalem and say, sorry, but we couldn’t use nukes to stop this; we were unwilling, when push came to shove to actually be serious in implementing policy, but only were willing to talk and hope?
Is that what the West has come to in protecting freedom, liberty and human rights? Talk?
Or are we willing to take any necessary action to stop the worlds most dangerous regime from acquiring the world’s most dangerous weapons?
It’s going to come down to a choice. Either we believe in protecting the lives and nations of peaceful people and will do what is necessary to do so… or we do not and will not.
And if we do not, then the West, born in individual rights, liberty and freedom, is over.