How does one explain to a sentient adult that we have the capability to destroy the enemy killing our children… and are choosing not to use it?
How does one explain to history that in the most important endeavor of mankind – war – we have been running FROM, rather than TO our most productive weapons? War is about killing; lack of productivity means killing MORE. How is that not insane?
I continually post that we – the West – must accept that Mecca, Medina, Qom must be annihilated, that the killing FOR the ideology will not stop until the ideology ITSELF is killed. Here’s why:
An ideology is at war with a West that has been begging that ideology to leave us alone. They’ve refused. We, however, have rejected war with that ideology.
This is an existential mistake – only one side in this clash will survive. Not believing this, believing we can coexist, is nothing but the projection by the West of Western mores onto non-Western cultures; it is monocultural and imperialistic. It also is naïve, ignorant and wrong.
WE believe in coexistence.
THEY do not believe in coexistence.
This is not a bridgeable divide.
People do not surrender what they believe.
Aware that we could annihilate in a microsecond the centers of that ideology, something that took us years and 400,000 dead Americans to do in the destruction of the last two ideologies to attack us, we have refused to make war on this ideology (combat is not war and combat WITHOUT war is immoral – yet it’s all we’ve been willing to do since 1945). Instead, we have killed a million (literally) of them and thousands of our own to no observable purpose.
We killed 2M Koreans and 2M Vietnamese to no purpose, as well. Why?
We didn’t kill a million people in Hiroshima (150,000) or Nagasaki (80,000). The use of nuclear weapons SAVED between 6M-10M lives (USN est Japanese deaths at 9M; USArmy est 5M, both est American deaths at 1M in an invasion).
We have spent on our S. Asia “wars” more in current dollars than it cost to defeat the two most modern military forces on the planet, simultaneously, across the entire planet, and in only 3.5 years: $4T. That $4T could have been spent on infrastructure, education – or just not added to our debt and subtracting from our kids’ future living standards.
The loss of never-to-be-born kids to never-to-be-parent Americans is inestimable.
My kids are 19, 21 – and have no recollection of an America NOT at war. THAT is shameful, far more shameful that the utter annihilation of the centers of the, literally, Stone Age ideology we send our kids to engage but not to defeat.
We – the West – ALL of us, need to differentiate between combat and war. We keep telling ourselves of the Vietnam War (it wasn’t), the Korean War (it wasn’t), the Gulf War (it wasn’t), and now the “war” in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria… Libya. None are or were wars. All were and are combat without war.
Sending our kids out to die in combat for wars we refuse to declare, fight or win is immoral. Killing THEIR kids, the human capital THEY will need to re-build after these “wars” we refuse to win, is equally immoral.
IF these “wars” ever end; and do YOU see any end in sight?
Contrary to what seems to be popular belief / conventional wisdom, the annihilation of the centers of muslim ideology does not mean killing all the muslims any more than the destruction of Berlin, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki meant killing all Japanese or Germans.
“muslims will react and kill us!”
They are killing us now.
“They’ll kill us in greater numbers!”
A distinction without a difference, and the essence of surrender.
There is no Plan B but to be killed ourselves. By Stone Age illiterate savages.
Is that how you want your children to die?
People complain that we can and must avoid civilian casualties, that any larger attack that kills civilians cannot be accepted.
This is a gross misunderstanding of the language we use to understand and describe reality. It is a gross misunderstanding of our place in this clash.
We believe we are so powerful they will accept this and stop fighting – so we need not use our full capability. This is the basis of the embarrassingly absurd “Shock and Awe”
nonsense. They believe we lack the willpower to use that capability to defeat them – and so they will defeat us.
Since 1945 – guess who is correct?
In war people die. In modern war, millions of people die. Whining doesn’t change this – it only delays and increases the killing. If you want to end the killing – history teaches that you must kill the enemy in large numbers as fast as you can. Then – and only then – can the killing stop. That is what war is about.
But – Western – sensibilities (and only Western sensibilities) require that we avoid killing civilians in our firefights, sometimes at the cost of someone’s son.
Innocent bystanders exist in combat, and we believe that non-combatants should not be targeted in combat.
But combat is combatant v combatant. It is man-on-man. It is violence, anger, fear, terror, sweat, blood, pain, tears, anguish and death. Combat is not the destruction of a nation, a culture or a civilization. Combat is not the destruction of liberty or freedom.
Firefights are combat. Combat is not War. We use different words for a reason.
War is ideology v ideology. It is when one ideology uses all its power – economic, military, political – to bend the will of their adversary to their way — or dies trying.
Combat is existential for human beings. War is existential for ideologies and nations.
There are no innocent bystanders in war.
Islam is killed. Or human rights, liberty and freedom… die.
This is and must be war. One side will win.
The other side will die trying.