By Douglas V. Gibbs
Wikileaks released 92,000 pages of secret documents regarding the war in Afghanistan, and in those papers are accounts of civilian deaths in Afghanistan. The founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, told reporters in London that he believed some of the documents, particularly those involving civilian deaths, could be used as evidence in war crimes cases.
War is a horrible thing. The liberal left will tell you that any civilian death is one too many. On the surface, I agree. I don't like war. I don't think there is a sane person on this planet that is a "warmonger." War is horrible, and that is why I believe we should end wars quickly.
Sometimes, to end wars quickly, and with as few deaths as possible, civilian deaths are necessary.
To fight a war, however, you must understand war, and the liberal left, the Democrats in power, and Barack Obama don't have the first clue when it comes to understanding war."
On May 1, 2007 I wrote: "Political Correctness has everyone worried about what they say or what they do. . . It seems to me that the past definition of war was not what it is now. Today's definition is heavily influenced by Vietnam and the hippies that marched against it. Before the Vietnam War was fought war was waged in a different way. We went in and fought the enemy. We didn't dance around politics. . . Right now we are essentially dealing with a termite problem by waiting for the termites to show themselves before we blast them. We fear attacking the problem because a few other bugs may be wiped out as well. . . From the beginning we should have gone in with guns blazing, destroyed a few cities, turned some sand to glass, allowed for collateral damage, and showed the world that if you screw with the United States your nation is going to suffer. We should have went in from a position of strength. We should have went in as the Superpower that we are. . . us tippy-toeing around all of this politically correct B.S., we have lost the war because we have refused to fight it. Bush has allowed himself to use rules of engagement that handcuffs our troops because he's worried about what the Left may say. . . the Media and the Left dictate the direction of the conflict. . . Screw the Left, screw political correctness, and fight the damn war! Don't quit until victory is achieved!"
Liberal commenters were appalled. "Wipe out cities? All of those innocent people!"
Those liberal leftists apparently do not understand war.
On May 26, 2007 I wrote: "For those of you that play chess, you know that the best way to win the game is to have a good defense, but to be constantly on the offense, attacking often. To win a war a nation must go in to win it. And, this war [Vietnam] was like nothing we had ever seen before. The enemy blended with the population and blended into the landscape. To be honest, to our surprise, they refused to play by the rules.
"As the war lengthened, certain groups stateside began to protest against it, and for good reason. Due to our desire to remain on defense, the war was being drawn out, and our men were dying without accomplishing much. Also, the conflict in Vietnam became more politicized, to the point that in the end we wound up withdrawing with our tails between our legs. Worse of all, there were certain Americans that cheered our undeclared defeat. Fact is, we didn't lose it militarily. We lost that conflict politically.
". . . due to the moanings and groanings of the hippies left over from Vietnam, this war has lost its military aspects and has become a political beast. A war cannot be won if it isn't being fought to be won.
". . . I believe that our troops are being handcuffed by Bush. The President has become so worried about public opinion and political correctness that he has changed the campaign in Iraq from a military effort to a political game of Twister. In one of my posts I used the words "turn the desert sand into glass" which is an obvious reference to nuclear weapons. Well, when I said that, Tom went nuts. In fact, his exact words are that I am certifiably insane. He then put up a statistic, and was quick to show a source, that 18% of Americans believe that the U.S. should use nuclear weapons even if it has not suffered a nuclear attack.
"Do I wish that we vaporize hundreds of thousands of ordinary people? Of course not. I don't know if we should consider such an action, but if it became necessary to protect our own nation, use of nuclear weapons may be an option. Though the dropping of atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima killed many people, many more people in the long run were spared because the war was shortened by the bombing. The willingness to use atomic bombs on Japan forced them into surrendering.
"However, such an action may not have the same results in this situation, because this enemy follows no rules, and will never surrender. How easy we forget who we are fighting against. The Islamofascists will not stop when they believe they have enough land or when Israel is finally destroyed. Their goal is the world domination of Islam. They have said so themselves. Do you not believe them? We never believed that they would fly planes into our buildings in New York and into our Pentagon, either. Boy, were we wrong. Let's not be wrong again.
". . . The rallying cry throughout World War II was 'Remember Pearl Harbor.' The memory of such an atrocious act against America kept us moving forward. We wound up fighting Germany and Italy as well, even though they were not technically a part of the attack on Pearl Harbor. We fought knowing that the security of our nation lay in the balance.
"'Remember 9/11' has been forgotten. And this enemy we face is nothing like those of the past. They will follow us home if we let up in the fight. They will strike us here again, as they did on 9/11. Our war in their faces has held them back, for now. They may still strike us, even with us fighting them in the Middle East. Anything is possible, and I dare not underestimate this ruthless enemy. But this war in Iraq, which is nothing more than a battle that is part of the larger Global War on Terror, is for our security. Have we forgotten what happened in 2001 when they flew planes into the World Trade Center?"
I wrote those two articles with the understanding of what war is, and how it must be fought, under my belt. The liberal left is so caught up on their feelings that they can't see beyond the tip of their nose, nor understand the true machinations of war.
On December 5, 2008 I wrote: "Liberals. . . decided that what I was saying [when I used the term 'turn sand to glass'] was that I somehow glorify the destructive power of nuclear weapons, and that I somehow believe in the use of nukes indiscriminately - that I wish for the destruction of cities full of innocents, that I believe we should just go in there (wherever there may be) and just start nuking everybody.
"I never said such a thing, and it is insanity that the leftards would even be so stupid as to proclaim that is what I was saying. Not a surprise, however, because this is how the left works. This is how they twist and turn words.
"At the time that I was making this statement about 'Turning Sand Into Glass,' what I was trying to get across, and apparently I failed to be clear enough for the Lefties to understand, is that when you are facing an enemy of such a magnitude you must show them that you are stronger than them, and that you are willing to do whatever it takes to defeat them. In other words, when dealing with an unreasonable enemy that is hell-bent on using violent means to put whatever their message is across to you, they must be fully convinced that we are willing to use any and all parts of our arsenal to stop them. Whether or not we are actually going to use any and all parts of our arsenal is not the point. They, the enemy, must believe we are willing to. We must go in with the attitude that we are in there to defeat whatever it is we are in there to defeat - and we are willing to use whatever troop level, any weapon, and even be willing to turn sand into glass.
"No sane mind loves nuclear weapons, or believes that such horrible weapons should be used readily and indiscriminately. But, as proven by the Cold War, making your opponent believe that you are willing to use such weapons if you must, and poising them in such a position that it backs up that threat, is a powerful weapon in its own right. If we fail to fully convince Islamofacism, for example, that we are willing to do whatever it takes to defeat them, that we have the resolve and the intestinal fortitude to follow through with our threat - if they don't truly believe that - then the War on Terror is pointless and doomed to fail. They will call your bluff, and they will do whatever they want to the point that it may result in the necessity of something like a nuclear device being used.
"This is what happened in Japan during World War II. The Japanese had no fear of us. They believed they were stronger, and that they would be able to outlast the American Forces in a continued long, drawn out war in the Pacific. It took two atomic bombs to convince them otherwise - two blasts that killed less people, as it turned out, than would have died should we have had to invade Tokyo in a long, drawn out conventional invasion.
"Am I glad we used the atom bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima? No, of course not. Nobody would ever be glad when people die - or at least nobody of a right mind. I am never happy when innocents, regardless of who they are, must suffer. But, if taking such a drastic action means stopping the slaughter of more people in the long run, then I support whatever it takes.
"Once again, I am not advocating that we go in and start nuking people. I am not advocating that India go into Pakistan and start nuking the cities of that country because of what happened in Mumbai. But I am advocating making sure that the enemy takes us seriously.
"I remember a science fiction television character once saying, 'The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.' I am a firm believer, when it comes to war, that sometimes the death of a few in a quick strike sends a much firmer message than a long, drawn out killing of many more, and will end wars faster.
"That was part of the mismanagement of Iraq on the part of George W. Bush in the beginning. He tried to satisfy the left by being careful with how many troops he sent into the region, rather than going in with the attitude that we were there to take care of business decisively and quickly, and that we were willing to do whatever it took to accomplish the mission."
Okay, let's get something straight. Peace through strength means that sometimes you have to use the strength to prove you are willing to use it. Besides, have you ever seen a war before where the troops were so worried about the deaths of civilians? Think about it. In a war it is not just your goal to kill the enemy troops, but to make their end of the war so bad that it forces them to stop!
Let me repeat: War is horrible. But, war usually begins when a bad guy does something (normally in an attempt to gain something) that requires a response. The good guys don't want to go to war, but they have to to stop the bad guy.
The response by the good guy has to be to make it so horrible to continue on that the bad guy surrenders. In past wars, that meant killing civilians. In fact, it meant targeting civilians. By not losing civilian casualties, the enemy has no reason to stop their part of the war. If you are only killing their troops, they don't care, because their soldiers expect to die anyway.
So in Iraq before, or Afghanistan now, why don't we just do what it takes to win? Why don't we level a couple cities and force the bad guys to give up? Making it horrible for the enemy makes them stop - thus, in the long run targeting civilians saves lives by cutting the war short!
Like I said earlier, I do not like war. War is horrible. It is so horrible, that I believe we should go in there and do what it takes to win, and end the war quickly.
Could you imagine if we fought a past war, like either of the World Wars, with this "don't kill civilians" policy?
We would have lost.
The WikiLeaks papers are not showing evidence for war crimes - they are showing our attempt to fight the damn war.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Karzai says 52 Afghan civilians killed in NATO strike - New York Times
Past Definition of War - Political Pistachio
Stemming the Bleeding, and Responding to Idiocy - Political Pistachio
Sand To Glass - Political Pistachio
No comments:
Post a Comment