Jerry Pournelle Column

nunn

Pournelle's response is insightful.THE LOGIC OF EMPIREThis is said well, and describes one possible -- even probable -- course of action. It may be the right way to go. Certainly it will resonate with the feelings of many here.I thought about this last night quite a bit, as I'm sure every American has, and after the initial emotional reaction as a former United States Marine and U.S. Army Ranger, I decided that I don't advocate immediate attack on Kabul-- tempting though it may be. The problem is that there are more terrorists than just those working under Bin-Laden, so simply tracking him down, if he is indeed behind this as our intelligence would seem to indicate, will really not solve the long-term problem. In fact, it will probably just trigger more terrorist attacks if we kill or capture him. I have a better idea...The President of the United States of America issues the following statement to the world press: "Henceforth, any terrorist attack on any U.N. or NATO member nation will trigger the immediate and simultaneous punitive bombing of the capital cities of every nation known to the U.N. to harbor terrorists and their supporting infrastructures. This will include, but not be limited to: Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Jordan, Syria, Palestine and Libya. Any attempt at retaliation by the terrorists or the nations harboring them will result in the immediate and complete destruction of the entire military and industrial infrastructure of the originating country, as well as possible land invasion and enforced occupation by U.N. and/or NATO forces. From this date forward, any further loss of life on the scale of the New York attack inside the borders of any U.N. or NATO member nation due to terrorist activity, will result in massive retaliation on the civilian population centers of the country or countries from which the terrorists originated. Potential use of nuclear weapons in the execution of this mandate will not be excluded. Furthermore, the city of Kabul will come under immediate, round-the-clock bombarment. This bombardment will continue until such a time as the Taliban government either chooses to turn over the party or parties responsible for the attack of 11 September 2001, or they are exterminated."Note that any group or nation caught taking advantage of such a policy in order to cause us to attack their enemies will be summarily exterminated.The problem is that we ARE at war, and we'd better pull our collective heads out of our collective pampered * and realize it. As has been stated by several of the pundits and politicians, this is not a mere criminal act, and hauling a couple of dozen people into court and convicting them of 15,000 counts of murder-1 is not going to solve the problem. The fact that these people operate from multiple countries, instead of being neatly packaged in one nation like Germany or Japan, ready for demonization and digestion, is irrelevant. Unless we make it very clear that this kind of act will be met with immediate and overwhelming force, and make it too dangerous for nations and governments to harbor terrorists, it *will* happen again. And again. And again.We are an empire--THE empire of the modern world, in fact--and we'd better start acting like it or everything we value will come down around our ears. These terrorists are an infestation; they are rebels against order and progress. The only way to deal with rebels is to burn them out with fire, to purge them utterly, completely, and without any twinge of mercy. This means the adoption of extreme and harsh measures. It means wiping them from the face of the earth, and removing any future potential threat. Their wives, mothers, fathers, grandparents, children, and pet dogs must all die with them. It must be made crystal clear to even the most dense of potential terrorists that the price you pay for terrorist attacks against the United States is far, far too high. The other option is to let them kill more American civilians. American civilians who are grandparents, mothers, fathers, wives, and children... How many have to die before we will do what is necessary, however distasteful "civilized" people may find it? I'm sure that Churchill and Roosevelt found it distasteful to order the mass firebombings of German and Japanese population centers. No less so did Truman find it distasteful to order the nuclear death of a quarter of a million people. But they did what they knew had to be done. Now, it is our generation's turn to make those harsh decisions. Yes, it may sound brutal to attack and wipe out population centers just to get at a few terrorists and their supporters, but is the alternative more palatable? Is it acceptable to see Americans die by the thousands, but unacceptable for those harboring our enemies?We have played word games and tried to reason with unreasonable people long enough. These people are no different from the Nazis of 60 years ago; they will not see reason, because they are not committing reasonable acts. The only option is to bomb them back to the Stone Age, march into their headquarters killing everything that opposes us, and hang the ringleaders in the public square. Anything less will NOT get the message across, as WWII proved to us. We have become weak, have forgotten the law of the jungle, and we'd best address this for what it is, before it's too late: "a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States of America." The barbarians are charging over the Seventh Hill. We can either fight them, or die.I am a citizen and a former soldier of the most powerful nation-state--indeed, the most powerful empire--that has ever existed on the face of the planet Earth. I WILL NOT LIVE IN FEAR. The strength is ours. We must be feared before we can be respected.I just hope that the President has come to the same conclusion.JTMauney jtmauney@swbell.netDo note that there are consequences to these actions. To begin with, we will trade liberty for security. That is a consequence of our desire to make everyone in the world Friends Of The American People, a title that Rome explicitly gave -- or imposed -- when the Republic adopted the policy of "to protect the weak and make humble the proud" and to extend friendship through the known world. Hamilcar Barca made his son Hannibal swear never to be a Friend of Rome. I would expect similar actions.I do not say we must do nothing. Far from it. I would go so far as to humiliate those dancing in the streets over this. I wouldn't kill them, but I would see they wished they had not done it. And I have nothing against an ultimatum to Kabul: bin Laden, alive and bound, or else.But understand, if we want to mind other people's business all over the world, we WILL make enemies, and we WILL have to trade liberty for security. This isn't speculation. It's what will happen.I mourn the republic, which I think is finished. If we are to be an empire then we should BE an empire. Do your enemies no SMALL injuries. Do not WOUND the king. That is, I suspect the future.It is a better future than doing nothing. But I think there is no compromise and that attempts at compromise will be fatal. Note that empires always end with emperor worship: even when much of it is cynical. Note also that empire and Christianity are not incompatible.

---

Certified SIG pistol armorer/FFL Dealer/Full time Peace Officer, Egotistical Rogue, Evil, Dangerous Racist Moderator of the General Discussion Board on Gunbroker. Email davidnunn@texoma.net Jesus is Lord!