Tuesday, November 17, 2015

More Unspeakableness

     Just yesterday evening on Special Report with Bret Baier, despite all the magical wards and angelic guardians posted to prevent it, Evil Marquis of Evil Charles Krauthammer succeeded in introducing a nasty, filthy, utterly forbidden element to the discussion of Barack Hussein Obama’s soi-disant “strategy” for “degrading and destroying ISIL:” a fact. Indeed, so devastating was Krauthammer’s first fact that he succeeded in introducing a second one while the other panelists (to say nothing of the home audience) were slowing their heart rates and catching their breath. These facts brought massive consternation to professional Obama apologist Juan Williams, who appeared unable to rebut them.

     What were these unspeakable facts? Just this:

  • On average, U.S. warplanes execute only seven sorties per day against ISIS targets;
  • In a large majority of those sorties, our planes don’t drop a bomb or fire a gun.

     If the mere presence of U.S. aircraft in the sky above them is intended to cow these Muslim fanatics into dropping their weapons and surrendering to our unopposable might, the best anyone can say about Obama’s “strategy” is that it doesn’t appear to be working.

     Don’t say anything like that to Obama, of course. He’s allergic to criticism. He’ll immediately tear off on a wholly irrelevant rant, probably about the Republicans in Congress. That might give him a headache. You wouldn’t want to do that to the Leader of the Free World, would you?

     We who honor facts and eschew wishful thinking in favor of reasoning must accept some harsh truths:

  • ISIS is advancing in its overall effort to establish a new Caliphate.
  • For practical purposes, the U.S. is not engaged in this fight.
  • Fake “refugees” will soon bring the fight to our shores.
  • The president wants it that way and no other.
  • The Legacy Media are solidly with him.

     Moreover, unless a solid conservative should gain the White House in November 2016 – and no, I’m not thinking of Donald Trump – none of those things will change.

     It’s been said many times in recent years that the Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns have wearied the American people of war. To a certain extent, this is true: they’ve certainly wearied of wars in which victory is not sought and our servicemen are permitted to bleed unendingly for no clear reason. Such is the nature of a “war” we choose to “fight” with our hands tied, with lawyers overseeing even the lowest-level military decisions, our men at arms continuously fearful that they’ll be tried, convicted, and sentenced for doing what soldiers at war must do.

     Less than a month after the inception of Operation Enduring Freedom, Democrats and Democrat-partisan commentators in the Legacy Media were whining about a “quagmire,” a “new Vietnam,” and the supposed “pointlessness” of the campaign. In point of fact, they weren’t worried that OEF had become another endless, pointless, tragically costly pseudo-war; they were straining to their limits to turn it into one, especially in the minds of the general public. For the chief lesson of Vietnam was that if you can’t defeat the United States in a test of arms, you can still attack its morale through its supposedly objective media...and that in the martial and geopolitical struggles of our time, the media will usually prove to be the more powerful weapon.

     It is possible to pose good, cogent arguments against American military intervention in the Middle East, especially as regards our “nation building” and “democratization” efforts among the savages of those lands. The past fourteen years have demonstrated that a war not fought to a conclusive victory, with the rag-clad losers on their knees before us begging for peace and agreeing to any terms at all, is a war fought to no purpose. It bleeds us of blood, treasure, and national morale without achieving anything worth the price. Worse, urgent matters where we could do some tangible good go unaddressed because our forces are entangled elsewhere.

     Weren’t we supposed to have learned that from Vietnam?

     Yet given our unmatched military prowess, Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom could have been prosecuted to clear and convincing victories. There are some who argue that they were such victories. We did remove the Taliban and the Ba’ath Party of Saddam Hussein from power over the countries they afflicted. That should count for something. Why didn’t it?

     We perverted our efforts there. Due to wishful thinking within the Bush Administration, helped along by its opponents, we imagined that we could halt our military’s efforts to locate, close with, and destroy the enemy in favor of fantastic political aims. We turned from pursuing the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and the Ba’athists to total destruction, and tried to build rule-of-law republics among persons whose entire worldview was formed from a vicious, totalitarian, seventh-century creed.

     More than four thousand young Americans went to their graves, along with more than a trillion dollars’ expenditure. Our net gain to date: zero. Indeed, ISIS forces have captured so much American war materiel that those suffering their brutality can blame us, in part at least, for arming them.

     Americans have good reasons to be tired of that sort of war.

     In witness of the above, I posit the following:

If we are again to go forth to war, it must be total war.
It must be war fought to annihilate the enemy, not merely to displace him from the capitals.
It must not stop short after having torn down the opponent’s flags and statues.

     We must entertain no further fantasies about establishing “democracy” among savages.
     It didn’t work in South Vietnam.
     It didn’t work in Afghanistan.
     Despite temporary appearances to the contrary, it didn’t work in Iraq.

A rule-of-law republic cannot be imposed by force upon those of a savage, tribal, sectarian mindset. It can only exist among a people who have demonstrated both a sincere belief in moral absolutes and the willingness to fight and die to be free.

     To spare you any doubt about where I’m headed, I’ll make it absolutely explicit.

     It can only work among Christians and Jews.

     Unspeakable, you say? Racist, sexist, ethnicist, Islamophobic? Of course it is! Thank you for noticing.


Bruce said...

"The past fourteen years..." as to the Muslims, the past 1,400 years.

Weetabix said...

A rule-of-law republic can only exist among believing Christians and Jews who are free of fuzzy-headed "liberal" and "progressive" nonsense.

I'm not sure we have that any more.

But, as usual, you're right about the war thing...

daniel_day said...

Only Christians and Jews? Japan is the best example of a functioning democracy of Buddhists and Myanmar appears to be functioning. Thailand and Cambodia are counterexamples.

Unknown said...

I think any religion other than Muslims can make a free country. It's the Muslim who are at war with every other group of people on the planet, including themselves.
The ironic thing about Paris is that this whole muslim revolution got rolling with the Iranians back in the late 70's. On 1 February 1979 Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, returned to Iran after 14 years in political exile. The last few months he was in exile in Neauphle-le-Ch√Ęteau,a suburb of Paris France.
Irony knows no bounds.

Anonymous said...

What about Hindus, Buddhists and Sikhs? Plenty of them know all too well what Islam is really about...

Tim Turner said...

Francis (or anyone): If you were to declare war against ISIS what would be your victory condition? I don't ay this to start an argument or prove a point. I just honestly don't know what it could be.

Anonymous said...

If you can't beat em
Shoot em

Brinster said...

Virginia governor McAuliffe is all for admitting refugees to the Commonwealth. Time for some intensive target practice.

LT said...

@Tim Turner - real war involves destroying your enemy, utterly and totally. If that is not the objective of your war, then your war was probably not Just in the first place. (I.e. Korea, Viet Nam, Somalia, Kosovo, Bolivia, etc.)

Abiding such a simple constraint, victory can be very simply defined. It is when we have achieved the following in our country, and assisted any other country also desiring to be free of 7th century savagery to do the same:

Kill every last muslim,
Burn every last copy of their satanic book,
Burn every last mosque to the ground,
Burn every last dwelling which they have inhabited;
And wherever you must burn,
Salt the ground heavily.

Unknown said...

Islamophobia means irrational fear of Islam.
Islammetusia means rational fear of Islam.
'Metus' means rational fear, in Latin.

Let's be Islammetusics, and courageous.

Reg T said...

Fran, as is usual, you are correct, but we will never engage in the proper war against islam until we have suffered more death and destruction. I hate to say it, but it is going to take an atrocity such as Breslin, where hundreds of children were raped, tortured, and killed by Chechen muslims. A few people in a theatre or a mall or a supermarket just isn't going to inflame enough people to force our socialist government to go to _real_ war against these sub-human creatures.

And it obviously doesn't matter how many non-muslim children and women are raped and killed if it is happening in another country. Even in Europe. Especially with a twisted, degenerate, narcissistic ass-hat in the White House who prefers muslim child-rapists over the American citizens he is responsible for (via the Constitution he took an oath to protect and defend).

If only there was some was to make the elites (of both parties) and media moguls who stuck us with this crass bastard pay for what is being done to our country. There aren't enough lampposts in DC to account for all of them.