Evidently the talking points are out, since I have now heard multiple individuals, especially those of Democrat persuasion, opine that ‘We have been bombing Iraq for 20 years so obviously that doesn’t work!’ Under their breath, they take a jab at GW Bush… as if he was president 20 years ago. But it is not exclusively a liberal argument. Another commentator made a similar statement, calling attention to the fact that the U.S. has been involved militarily in the region for decades, under both Republican and Democrat presidents.
To some degree, the point can be conceded, and the question can be asked, “Just how DO we stop attacks like the ones we saw in Paris?”
The answer is really pretty obvious. The problem is that no one likes the answer.
First consider the fact that these sorts of events are relatively new, originating roughly with establishment of Israel after WW2. Much can be said about how this all went down, but I would like to highlight the fact that it was the international community that greenlighted that, and yet afterwards left Israel on its own. Worse, it allowed the ‘refugees’ to stay in the region, throwing up roadblocks against Israel re-locating them. We continue to reap the results of this.
Now consider the fact that Germany and Japan are as civilized as any other these days, and pose no military threat to any other nation.
What is the difference between these two instances? Germany and Japan were totally annihilated in World War 2, whereas Israel/Palestine is a situation where things have been allowed to fester for decades. Intentionally so, by regimes that could easily have absorbed the ‘refugees.’ Accidentally so, by the international community that created the ‘refugees’ in the first place, but then did not have the will to just finish the job.
Really, a lot of the history of the 20th century can be broken down into these two basic categories: problems eradicated completely by decisive, thorough action, and problems created by not completely addressing the problems.
The same is certainly the case with Iraq and the vicinity. After the first Gulf War, Hussein was allowed to live. He used his time to massacre countless freedom-loving people inside his country who rose up thinking that the international community would back them. Boy were they wrong!
If you wonder why it is that there does not seem to be any significant resistance to ISIS and other Islamic militants, its because the people who were of the sort to stand up and fight were mercilessly destroyed by Hussein as the US and UN stood by and watched. That is, they are dead. And the children they would have had and brought up in a liberty-loving ideology never came into existence.
Hussein continued to build up his arsenal and continued to pose a menace, buying off UN bureaucrats (Oil for Food) to impoverish his own people while strengthening his own position. After he was implicated in 9-11 and an attack seemed imminent, he quietly moved his WMDs (which we are told by liberals never existed) to Syria. Assad has now actually used them, crossing Obama’s vaunted red line.
These are important factors, but I wish to call attention to the fact that Iraq is indeed still a nightmare, left in a mess by George Bush and Barack Obama, both. But if GW Bush is to be faulted, it is not for going into Iraq, but by not absolutely finishing the job.
“We’ve been bombing Iraq for twenty years!” blah blah blah. We only bombed Germany and Japan for five years, and both countries had exponentially superior armament, organization, resources, etc, than Iraq, Syria, Iran, or a ragtag band of Islamic militants. And yet, we’ve had trouble with the latter, while Germany and Japan are happily civilized and helpful today.
The big mistake–and that is an understatement–falls from the supposedly humanitarian ‘restraint’ that the international community is always calling for. Now, whether it is because the international community is playing an angle, such as trying to make money hand over fist via ‘Oil for Food’ shenanigans, while duping scores of liberals, or because they legitimately want to be compassionate, the very basic question that should be asked is whether or not this ‘humanitarianism’ has ever actually brought us peace… or just years and years of more bloodshed.
And the answer is that these ‘humanitarian’ efforts have only resulted in getting lots of people killed.
Now, the ‘humanitarian’ insists that they want to help people, and prevent people from getting killed, but there is this little thing called ‘reality’ that proves that their good intentions amount to nothing. After all, killing ONE man, Saddam Hussein, back in 1991, would have spared the lives of tens of thousands almost immediately and a half a million children supposedly killed by international sanctions on Iraq. But hey, you just keep calling yourself the one who really cares about people, ok, champ?
Of course, the story goes on from there. Hussein made himself a huge target after 9-11 (which also probably would not have happened if we had dealt with Iraq completely after the first Gulf War), prompting yet another invasion which yet again came to a conclusion that was nothing like the conclusion reached at the end of Germany and Japan.
And here we are today.
Just to spell out the difference for those in Rio Linda, in the case of Germany and Japan, full out war resulting in complete annihilation of the enemy and obtaining an unconditional surrender has brought us decades and decades of peace (vis a vis these two countries) that persists to this day. Not committing fully to the establishment of Israel, or finishing up Iraq, or destroying the regime in North Korea, or… I mean, the list is long, here… has led to countless murders, imprisonments, slavery, torture… you name it. The evidence of history is that so-called ‘humanitarians’ are complicit in decades of bloodshed and tyranny. Well done!
Regardless of whether or not you think Israel should have been established or if you think we should have gone into Iraq the first time, or the second time, once the action is initiated, history shows that the absolute worst thing you can do is stay your hand until complete and utter surrender has been obtained by the enemy.
This is truth.
This is reality.
This is the way the world really works.
Sorry, but it is.
Now, bearing all this in mind, let us consider the present situation.
What we have to do here, whether we like it or not, is fix the problem once and for all. The examples of Germany and Japan show that, in fact, it can be done. It need not linger on for decade after decade, such as in the case of Israel and Palestine, or in the case of Iraq and so on.
Does it mean continued ‘bombing’?
It’s not quite as simple as that, but it is as simple as coming to grips with the real nature of the enemy and then acting accordingly.
Now, there is something very interesting about the difference between Al Qaeda and ISIS. In the former, there was, ostensibly, only the goal of ridding infidels from the region. (Anyone who has studied the Wahhabi sect knows that the word ‘ostensibly’ is well-chosen.) In the latter case, there is the more explicit goal of conquering the whole world and establishing another Caliphate. Holding territory and expanding into new regions is part of the program.
But of course, this latter point is part and parcel with the religion of Islam as a whole, which is the point I’m driving at.
This global agenda has similarities with the global agenda of Germany and Japan in World War 2, the global agenda of 20th century communism, and even the global agenda of contemporary secular humanism, although luckily for us, this last group temporarily is manned by ‘humanitarians.’ The ‘global’ aspect is what made these other regimes the clear and present danger that they represent today, as opposed, say, to what we see in North Korea. North Korea is only ‘communist’ by appearances. For all practical purposes, its really just the personal plaything of the Kim family. They are a menace to their immediate neighbors, but is otherwise content to be left alone.
ISIS, and Islam more generally, is characterized by a desire to conquer the whole world. Which means that, unchecked, they will come for you.
The ‘humanitarians’ would have us believe that Islamic militants are goaded along by poverty, or colonial imperialism, or what not. These are only pretexts for violence, and the Islamicists use the ‘humanitarian’ arguments as shields behind which to move into action. This is precisely what is happening in the current ‘refugee’ crisis in Europe. Islamicists enjoy using the good intentions of others against them. Speaking amongst themselves, however, both today and in centuries past, their objective is perfectly plain: subjugating the planet for Allah.
Ultimately, then, the battle to end the threat of Islamicism means defeating Allah, just as defeating Germany and the Nazi movement meant exterminating Hitler and defeating Japan meant humiliating the Japanese god, Hirohito. Compare and contrast with leaving Hussein alive after the first Gulf War, and looking to Germany and Japan today, versus Iraq and the middle east today.
You see, from the Muslim point of view, Allah’s will will be done.
The false god must be brought down.
It is akin to the fall of Pharaoh, in the book of Exodus, who likewise thought himself a god, and had to be revealed as a false god before the grip on the Israelites could be released.
This has to be a priority consideration for any attempt to really end the threat of Islamicism in the way that Nazism was ended, but of course this means getting into areas that a lot of people are loathe to do. You know, liberals and even a few conservatives like to think about fighting Islamicism through ‘economic’ means, and what they really are doing is trying to find a ‘secular’ solution to what is really a pernicious ideology, enmeshed in theological and philosophical aspects. You cannot end Islamicism without effectively proving to Muslims that their god is toothless. Mohamed spread Islam with the sword and proved his case by pointing to his success. Only by reversing the process can he be overturned.
But there is no way that process can be overturned unless the people who wish to do the overturning have the courage of their convictions.
And for that, you actually have to have convictions.
If there is anything about contemporary society in the U.S. and abroad that is clear, it is that people are so ‘open-minded’ that they have trouble making up their mind about anything. They certainly never reach the level of confidence necessary to act. It’s all, “What’s true for me may not be true for you… and that’s OK.” The Islamicists love this, because they begin and end their day with, “What’s true for me… is true.” It’s simple and straight-forward and the stuff of action. “What’s true for me may not be true for you” means perpetual inaction.
In order to eventually take action, one has to actually come to certain conclusions and believe that one has good reason for taking action.
It is this ideological ‘certainty’ that facilitated the defeat of Germany and Japan.
Some think that the problem is ‘certainty’ itself. They think that if only everyone was uncertain, no one would do anything untoward. But the perpetually ‘uncertain’ person is only prey to the ‘certain’ person. No ‘certain’ person was ever defeated or defanged by ‘uncertain’ people. No, it takes ideologically ‘certain’ people to defend the ‘uncertain’ ones. Just as the nation of pacifists only exists because other nations are willing to do violence on their behalf, contemporary ‘humanitarians’ are only able to spew their relativism because people more in tune with actual reality go out and risk their lives.
These ‘humanitarians’, and the relativistic nature of contemporary society itself, is fueling the Islamic bloodshed. Not only is it refusing to take action, but it stands in the way and obstructs people from taking the necessary actions.
These actions include equipping themselves and their own communities with a more robust ideology than their own, in order to obtain the kind of reasonable certainty that can rise and defeat Islamicism.
To sum up, in order to end Islamicism you need to:
1. Come to terms with the fact that Islamicism is only going to be defeated by humiliating Allah by completely annihilating any and all who do war in his name.
2. Come to terms with the fact that it is proper and right to do so, and not doing so will actually, in the long term, result in thousands, if not millions more dead.
3. Come to terms with the fact that one cannot remain uncertain forever–one has to come to certain conclusions that they believe are reasonable and true and enforceable.
Heck, these days, I would settle for just being reasonably certain that ‘self-preservation’ is a valid principle. But, given the conduct of Europeans and American liberals, it seems that they really are unsure about whether or not they are allowed to defend themselves.
4. Obtaining the right kind of certainty means coming to grips with the fact that there is much more truth in certain theological and philosophical systems than people are currently comfortable with.
To put it bluntly, secular humanism simply does not correspond to the way the world really is, whereas Christianity does.
I am not calling for a war in the name of Christianity, here. I am pointing out that secular humanism and its fangless ‘humanitarianism’ only has merit at all because it has borrowed capital from a Christian worldview–the very one that drove the United States, Canada, England, and Australia to batter Germany and Japan into utter submission. There are derivative aspects of the Christian worldview that, like it or not, are the only firm foundation for taking action against evil regimes or ideologies.
To begin with, the Christian worldview can speak about ‘evil’ as if it was a real thing, not the simpering and insipid weak-kneed descriptions of terrorist incidents as if they were unfortunate expressions of misunderstood individuals who really just need a hug.
But it is Christianity that is under relentless attack in the West, rather than the Islamicists. Why? Well, Christians are an easier mark for simpering children. Christianity has a reputation for not endorsing every sexual behavior under the sun, and that’s not cool, but they won’t cut off your head. You gotta be careful with the Muslims, ya know?
And therein lies the problem… and the solution.
Islamicism must be completely defeated, while there is still time, but only the Christian worldview is manly enough to do the job.
If you’re not ok with that (and I don’t expect many to be ok with it) I totally understand. No, really, I do. Just get ready for the Caliphate to set up shop in your own town sometime in the perhaps not-too-distant future, because, from where I sit, there is nothing else on tap that can, or will, stop the Islamicists from doing their worst. Or best, as they see it.
The exception, ironically, appears to be Russia.
But not, I think, because it is a secular state.