Military Pages These pages edited by Joe Opsec and Topsy Krett
Russia Invades Georgia:
The more things change, the more they look the same. As I
watch this unfold, I can't help but
think of all the people who naively think the world has evolved beyond this kind
of thing - countries invading their neighbors for profit and power. I can name
off the top of my head thirty or better dictators in the last ten years who do
such things - just like in the old days - which necessitates our own continued
military might. Furthermore, we have to wake up to the fact that this power grab
by former KGB chieftain - and murderous career thug - Putin is meant to set
himself up as an oil baron and restore some of the former glory of the Soviet
Union...all at the same time that we are crippling our own oil power and thus
our whole economy by pandering to environmentalist
hysteria. Our security - economic or military - is not a given. Russia's economy
is growing rapidly, and our declining one is - like it or not - energy based.
There is no better illustration than this situation that we need oil
independence by drilling and producing here at home. Mr. Obama, "inflating our
tires" and "getting tune-ups" is an absurd solution to the energy crisis that is
just about to get even worse with this new situation. Tell me that's not the
extent of your as-yet-unspecified "changes" we can believe in.
"Except for abolishing Nazism, fascism, communism, and slavery; war has never solved anything."
REMEMBER, REMEMBER...THE 11TH OF SEPTEMBER
These Guys Do...
To the guy who wrote that song, and all those who hold hands with him: While you're "Waitin' on the World to Change," these guys will be out there doing something about the people who would do harm to your loved ones
Shown above left is the true face of compassion. How so? Because he stands in the gap between aggressors and victims. He chooses to use his very life to defend others - rather than sit on the sidelines singing wishful-thinking peace songs that don't help anyone. Look at it another way: Who is more compassionate at the scene of a crime?...the defender who intervenes against the violence; or the song/movie writer who stands idly by but artistically comments on 'what a shame' crime is?
(disclaimer: to my more savvy visitors, yes, I am aware that one of the images above is of British Royal Commandos - and not U.S. Green Berets)
Give War a Chance
I didn't start this page with an image of the Twin Towers so I could talk about September 11. I'll do that at length if you care to click other articles presented as links at the bottom of this page. But I do want help keep the memory of Sept 11 alive - because too many people in our country have forgotten why we are fighting the Global War on Terror.
Sadly, America's forgetfulness on the nature of the Islamic threat is going to lead to more attacks before we are finished. Unfortunately, there are few among us who have the wisdom and foresight to stamp out the seeds of a threat, meaning that we probably won't get serious about it until Islamic fascism is a global menace again - as it has been through most of history. The history of Islam is expansion through conquest. It is a part of their fundamental world view, and was only halted after the fall of the Ottoman Empire after World War I. When the Islamists lost that state sponsor, they lost much if not all of their power leverage in the world. A key reason we are seeing a resurgence now is that many Islamic states are strengthened with massive oil revenues (Saudi Arabia, et al).
War is Always Unpopular
September 11 is a powerful reminder of why we sometimes have to fight. But the memories of the American people about such things is short - and always has been. We want to live in our own world...isolated from the problems elsewhere. That's natural and somewhat noble because we want to create a rosy life for our families. That's why we waited so long to enter World Wars I and II. It is a myth that we had greater unity in World War II than we see now. Wars have always been an unpopular platform for politicians - all the way back (in this country) to the Revolutionary War. Woodrow Wilson ran and won his pre WWI campaign based on "keeping us out of Europe." Of course, he's the one who ultimately had to face facts and commit us to that conflict - but only after the whole thing had blown up in the world's face.
And this reluctance is not limited to Americans. Winston Churchill - despite being the salvation of his country - was promptly voted out of office as soon as the war was over. He was a war leader. As necessary as he was during his tenure, his people didn't want a "hawk" in the office any longer than they needed.
Peace through
Strength
Free societies crave peace. In World Wars I and II we hoped we
could avoid involvement - and we tried. While the seeds were sown and the threat
grew from small to large, we tried to lead our normal lives rather than address
the facts. Soon enough, the threat grew to a global conflict, and we were
compelled to act - for the sake our very survival. Sadly, though, this meant
that far more lives were lost than would have been the case had we had the
foresight to act before the threat became dire. One has to wonder, if the
leaders of the rest of the world had addressed Hitler early, would they have
been seen as bullies as Bush and Major are being called now by the Peace
Movement? How much peace could have been preserved with an earlier intervention
against Hitler? Often the path to peace is through war. That is why people say
seemingly inconsistent things like "we fight for peace" and why fighting
soldiers often call themselves "preservers of the peace." George Washington said
in the first State of the Union address that
"To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace."
- G.W. Jan 8, 1790
The Peace Movement during the last days of the Cold War did little more than wring their hands nervously while Reagan openly challenged the Soviet Union. The Peace Movement was afraid (that's their dominant emotion) that Reagan's saber-rattling - as they called it - was going to lead to WWIII. Reagan called his approach "Peace through Strength" and it was effective in winning the Cold War. Those who would deny Reagan the credit for this say that the Soviet Union fell because it went bankrupt. This is true, but they did so because Reagan challenged them to keep pace with our military buildup. He believed in capitalism and knew that we had the horsepower they lacked on the economic front and had the vision to fight a war with money rather than bullets.
"Peace through strength" is why there are almost no home invasions in Switzerland - where there is universal gun ownership; and why when communities adopt concealed carry permits, they see a dramatic and instant drop in muggings and car-jackings. Perps do not break into homes where they are reasonably sure there is a gun inside. The same principle applies to nations - and to terrorists.
If you make arms against the laws, then only law-abiding folks will discard them...leaving them open to those who live by ignoring laws (and treaties) in the first place.
There are Times in History When Opposing War Makes about as Much Sense as Opposing Firefighting
Reality doesn't permit us to live in isolation. Nations are like neighbors in a housing development....if there is an arsonist on the loose, then the fire and police departments must respond appropriately, and it's everybody's problem - not just the problem of the family whose house is being hosed down at the moment. In kind, world conflicts are perpetrated by the globally criminal, and soon events will transpire that will force us to respond - whether we try to wish it away or not. Worse, the size of the problem only gets larger the longer it goes unanswered, just as an arsonist will be emboldened to set more fires if he goes months or years without being dealt with. This is all the more true if he sees in the fire department a conspicuous lack of will to catch him. Worse still, imagine if the arsonist saw infighting within the fire department about his respective right to set fires. Worse again, what if he saw protesters outside the fire and police chief's window calling the chiefs bullies and hate mongers when steps were taken to catch the arsonist? There are times in history when opposing war makes about as much sense as opposing firefighting.
Pacifism is More Dangerous than War
An overly pacifist approach to threats is always much more costly (in lives and resources) than going to war earlier would have been. Example 1 of many: Relatively speaking, Hitler would have been FAR easier to deal with if we had had the will to stop him early when he was small potato(e)s and had his eye on the Sudetenland instead of the whole world.
How do you
with
???
Pacifism Invites Aggression
In kind, to use the not-as-recent-as-most-people-think example of terrorism, terrorists were once a smaller network too...but grew in size and boldness as they watched the greatest Superpower on Earth kowtow to an impotent United Nations in response to their terror acts over the last twenty-plus years. September 11 was only their most successful attack on America - not their first. It stood out because it was dramatic enough to catch the attention of even the most uninformed American ... although the resultant unity only lasted about a month. Prior to September 11, we listened far too much to the "moderating voices" in our society and responded weakly to the bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon; the Iranian Hostage Crisis; the bombing of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya, Tanzania, and Egypt; the U.S.S. Cole; and the first World Trade Center bombing, just to name a few. Further, our politically-correct, "Low Intensity Conflict," appeasement approach to the first Gulf War left Hussein (a wealthy state sponsor of terror) in power. That, and our cut-and-run in Somalia both added to the perception by our enemies that we lacked the will to fight. As in the arsonist example above, that lack of fighting will fueled the terrorist's recruiting efforts, and emboldened them to the point where they believed a September 11 scale attack was possible. Then, of course, it happened.
Many Americans are Aiding the Enemy's Propaganda Efforts
A key part of the terrorists' plan is to make sure that the conflict lasts long enough that the American people will weary of the death toll numbers and leave them alone to plot more attacks. They believe that we as a people have a low tolerance for casualty rates among our service members - and they are right. We play into their hands and do their recruiting and propaganda for them when we publish daily casualty numbers. We lost more service members in a week in WWII than we have lost in the entire GWOT. I am not - of course - suggesting that the GWOT casualties are insignificant, but they have to be seen in perspective. Part of that perspective is realizing how many civilian lives are being saved by the war effort.
Service Members Understand the Risks and Willingly Sign On
Service members voluntarily sign on knowing and fully understanding the risks. Yes, there are a few people in the military who write books and movies about how bad the war is (like Jarhead, for example), and who call themselves "accidental soldiers" - because they only went to the military to learn a trade but ended up in combat. Well, go figure. If you don't understand that war is bad and that you might end up in a combat zone by joining the military, then I don't know what to say to appeal to your sense of logic. The rest of the military does not consider these people to be in keeping with the "highest traditions of the service."
More than that, service members crave the opportunity to serve by ridding the world of threats to our loved ones. There are many people in any society who are ruled not by their fear, but by duty. The people of the peace-at-any-cost movement have a hard time relating to that kind of person.
The Top Ten Reasons the Peace Movement Gets it Wrong...Good Intentions Notwithstanding
- More innocents would be lost if we did not go to war: The Peace Movement fails to put the casualty rates into a logical context. We have thwarted so many additional attacks since Sept 11 through our intelligence efforts and military might in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. That's worth the fight we are waging. Better to fight on the terrorist's turf than in malls, high rises, and stadiums here in America. The terrorists have chosen to infiltrate Iraq and make that their battle ground. That's better than our fighting here among our families, and in the process we have rid the Iraqis of their oppressor. Yes, the Iraqis have bombings because of that...but they see in the fight a hope in their newly-acquired, dictator-free life that they could not have dreamed of before we arrived. The media do not report that because they want to see the current administration embarrassed and eventually tossed out, at any cost - even to the detriment of the country's security. The politicians the media support in this effort are worse still, because they know the facts but were so hungry to get back into power that they waged a misinformation campaign that threatens our service member's efforts, and the security of all of our loved ones here at home. And of course, after the 2006 Congressional elections, they won back control of both Houses with this approach.
- "Peace at any cost" was Neville Chamberlain's appeasement approach to Hitler...and is what allowed the Nazi threat to grow unchecked and become a global menace. The Peace Movement fails to realize that war has costs - in lives and money. That's why we should only enter a war when the alternative is worse - like living under Nazism, for example, as very nearly happened. We shouldn't enter a war lightly, but once we do, we should fight all out - and fight to win. That's the real lesson of Vietnam. Vietnam's lesson to us was not that "war itself is something to be avoided at all costs." The lesson of Vietnam was "don't try to fight a politically correct war."
- Service members volunteer for hazardous duty and know the risks. We addressed that in an earlier paragraph.
- The Peace Movement utterly fails to offer any alternative plan for keeping our loved ones safe. You needn't take my word for this fact...look for yourself whenever you hear a war protester of any kind. Look for their suggestions about what should be done about terrorism. They have none, because sometimes there is just no other alternative to war and there is no logic to be presented in opposition to it. They offer only criticism and have resorted to the kinds of shrill rhetoric and fact less personal attacks launched against their opponents that you are seeing daily. Sadly, this often works with the uninformed American public.
- Good intentions count less than results. Enough said there.
-
It's a good thing for the terrorists to be
hiding under rocks right now instead of sipping tea in their former training
camps as they plot attacks. That makes them have to spend all their energy
saving their skin, or reacting to military forces - rather than perpetrating
more attacks on American civilians. This is precisely why we have had no
additional attacks since 9/11. It's no accident, and we have thwarted many
specific plans since 2001 through the international military - and domestic
intelligence - operations that the Peace Movement opposes. What civil rights
would anyone have without security? There is no solution that is without a
down side. To think otherwise is naive, absolutist and simplistic. - There a minority of people willing to pay the cost necessary to safeguard the rest of society. The situation we face now is not unlike a bus stop where there is a bully. Most of the kids in that situation are like the Peace Movement and will entreat the others to do what the bully says so that he "doesn't get any madder." They see our response to the (bully) terrorists as the source of our enemy's hatred and the fuel for their actions. In fact, however, it is the Islamic fascists' pre existing hatred and their offensive actions are what we are fighting against. The Peace Movement fails to understand this because their idealism and their "blame America first" mentality clouds any deep analysis of the reality in front of them.
- They are a vocal minority that does not enjoy the support of most Americans (not that the right thing to do is ever about popularity). The Peace at Any Cost crowd does not realize that their ideas only seem as prominent as they do because the media is sympathetic with them. Americans, however, are showing that they know better by how they are voting. Even in the last election cycle, the democrats may have won back enough seats to regain Congressional control in both houses, but every individual election was very close and was won by democrats who talked tough on terror. Thus, the election results are less a mandate for Berkeley-esque pacifism than they were a protest against the method of past conduct in the Global War on Terror before the highly successful Surge.
- America is slow to war. We let ourselves get pushed and pushed and pushed before we counter attack. The Peace Movement crowd fails to acknowledge that when we do, we are the only country on the planet to place high standards on how ethically war can be applied. It would be so much cheaper and easier and faster to prosecute a war with dumb weapons that would flatten cities and kill countless civilians. But we opt instead for outrageously expensive smart weapons only because we want to minimize the impact on innocents. No other country even tries to do that or cares a whit about world opinion when they don't. The American military fights by "Rules of Engagement" that dramatically limit how we can fight so that we minimize civilian impact. That makes it far more difficult to prosecute a war, and far more dangerous for our own service members - all so that we can safeguard innocents and treat even our enemies fairly. Yet despite the fact that we do all these things, America gets the lion's share of criticism on the subject of war. The reason for that is as shallow as the fact that we are the biggest player on the block, and the criticism has no better foundation than our greater visibility and the inevitable envy that incites. Any time you are that visible, the Peace Movement armchair quarterbacks will blame you first when they criticize from the bench.
- Finally and simply: To People Like Hitler and the terrorists, Reasonable Diplomacy Cannot be Applied because they are not reasonable and they see diplomacy as weakness
It's amazing that no other attack has yet happened since Sept 11. It will probably happen eventually, but if we had not responded to 9/11 the way we did - with war - we would have had by now many additional attacks. There are those who oppose this war for their own self-serving political reasons, but ideological opponents of this particular war are doing what they have always done: they are responding emotionally to casualty figures rather than logically thinking through all the reasons to fight.
To People Like Hitler and the terrorists, Reasonable Diplomacy Cannot be Applied
Like any criminal, despots live not by the rules of society, but of the jungle. Where decent people see the application of diplomacy as a reasonable course of action, despots see only weakness - because they only understand force. It is a primitive outlook on the world, shaped by a completely different mindset that went out of style for most of us through social evolution hundreds of years ago. The political philosopher Thomas Hobbes talked about the "natural state" of man - where mankind lives lives that are "brutish and short" - and we are dominated by the strongest bullies (there's the bully metaphor again). Machiavelli thought somewhat the same as Hobbes on that score, and their view of the world has plenty of conflict and brutal dictators to support their contentions.
"One Man's Terrorist is Another Man's Freedom Fighter"
I want to take a moment to address this common aphorism. I had a discussion once with a friend about the PLO. When I called them terrorists, he bristled and defended them, saying that "they had to resort to those tactics - because they lacked the kinds of weapons we have." My first thought was "thank God they don't have them!" and I said so. My friend Kurt went on to quote the popular bumper sticker that I made the heading of this paragraph.
Sadly, most people's opinions are largely shaped by catchy one-liners like this one. It is the limit of their analysis, and many pop culture politicians like Jesse Jackson have made a career of being able to get such phrases to catch on. All the better if you can get them to rhyme, as Jesse has a knack for.
In the "one man's terrorist" example, let me just say that you can differentiate pretty easily who is the terrorist and who the freedom fighter by looking at tactics and who they target. A freedom fighter targets military and infrastructure - the war machine and the oppressor. The terrorist does his noble work at bus stops and marketplaces where he's sure to find plenty of women and children. Before you start thinking that we also kill innocents in what we call "collateral damage," let me point out that these deaths are to U.S. soldiers an unfortunate but inescapable part of war, and that they go to extreme lengths and expense in an attempt to eliminate their occurrence. Terrorists, by definition, do not. It is in fact their intent. Quite a difference in outlook, and it's a big part of how to identify evil.
I like what Reagan had to say on this point:
"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." That's a catchy phrase, but also misleading. Freedom fighters do not need to terrorize a population into submission. Freedom fighters target the military forces and the organized instruments of repression keeping dictatorial regimes in power. Freedom fighters struggle to liberate their citizens from oppression and to establish a form of government that reflects the will of the people. Now, this is not to say that those who are fighting for freedom are perfect or that we should ignore problems arising from passion and conflict. Nevertheless, one has to be blind, ignorant, or simply unwilling to see the truth if he or she is unable to distinguish between those I just described and terrorists. Terrorists intentionally kill or maim unarmed civilians, often women and children, often third parties who are not in any way part of a dictatorial regime. Terrorists are always the enemies of democracy." - May 31, 1986
Why "Give Peace a Chance" Won't Work
When you or I see a bumper sticker that says "Give Peace a Chance" or "War is Not the Answer" we want to say "right on!" It sounds right, and it is...in theory, anyway. The problem is that you and I are not despotic individuals with the command of a military and designs on (regional or world) domination. In short, if you are someone who would empathize with a peace-loving bumper sticker, then we're really not worried about you. We know that you are enlightened, and that you're nice. The obvious problem, however, is that there are actually plenty of historical, recent, and current examples of people with a criminal mind who will never be as nice as you are. They probably don't even have any bumper stickers, and couldn't turn a catchy, rhyming phrase if they tried. They are too busy oppressing people.
Some people think that we can evolve as a society to a point where we will stop creating despotic "meanies." While these pacifists are almost always of genuinely platinum intentions, such ideas are naive at best, and highly dangerous. Dangerous because their strategy is built upon their own experience - which is shaped by their good intentions. They wrongly assume their good intentions can be shared if we can just all learn to get along.
If the Peace Movement crowd is pressed to offer a solution to conflict, they will eventually point to Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr. or Thoreau as examples of how a non-violent "sit-in" can move mountains. They actually believe that someone like Hitler would be swayed by their good example, or some catchy John Lennon songs. What you have to examine, however, is who non violent tactics were successful against when they were applied. You must know your enemy. In the case of Gandhi, it was the British, and with MLK, it was America. Despite the misdeeds of those two countries that led Gandhi and MLK to act, you have to realize that both of these powers were driven - ultimately - by conscience, and were able to see the error of their ways at some point. That can not be said of Hitler. Try to imagine Gandhi-esque tactics against the Third Reich. It would have been a tragically ineffective response to any despot; and Gandhi would have been remembered as a fool instead of as the heroic and wise martyr he was.
Lest you think that I keep using Hitler as a "no longer relevant, extreme example from the past" - consider a short, top-of-my-head list of some of the recent examples of brutal leaders: people like Pinochet, Ceausescu, Pol Pot, Hussein, Castro, Quathafi, Milosevic, Amin, Aidid, Stalin, Duvalier, Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il, Mao Zedong, Mobuto, Mussolini, Seko, Marcos, Salazar, etc etc......that's only going back a few decades. There are plenty of others throughout history.
Final Thoughts
Are we improving as a (human) race with regard to world conflict? Yes. Undeniably. Imperialism, for example, is long since unfashionable - even with the despots. But we cannot be allowed to let the wishful thinkers of free society drive how we see those who have not evolved as a culture beyond seventh century style barbarism. The Peace Movement fails to see this because their world view is so unsophisticated that they need direct experience with primitive aggression before they can acknowledge or analyze it. They have such a hard time doing this that they believe the threat to be exaggerated. But how do you exaggerate 9/11? How can that threat be "hyped?" Even the Peace Movement should be able to see 9/11 for what is was. And 9/11 is shown through cursory analysis to be consistent with a track record of violence from our enemy, rather than an isolated event. If we do not wake up to this fact, we will fate ourselves or our children to fight a far larger and more costly conflict.
Some say this war is costly now - already. How can this be said when it has no effect on the daily lives of Americans? When it is consuming less than two percent of or GDP, compared to the over seventy-five percent in WWII? There is no rationing of gas or metal. No war bond campaigns. Nothing like we saw in WWII. Let's not make the mistake of letting it get to that point before we start to take seriously the aggressive threat of Islamic militantism.
If you think I'm exaggerating when I say all of that, then you have illustrated my point.
THE KEY POINT: If we cut and run in Iraq and Afghanistan, as we have done in the past conflicts, we will further validate the use of terror against us as a tactic - and we will see that much more of it in the future.
Respond to this and see other responses at my new blog! For this article, go to http://marconwar.blogspot.com/
Related Topics
How the Military is Preparing for the Democrats to Take Over Politics
How the Media Looks at The Global War on Terror
Some Interesting War Statistics
The Dalai Lama's thoughts on the War in Afghanistan: Keep in mind as you read this that he is living in exile from his home country because his neighbors were militarized when he refused to be