In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

Terrorism and "Pulling your Punches"

landislandis Member Posts: 230 ✭✭✭
edited October 2001 in General Discussion
Kinder, Gentler WarmakingOn total war.Mr. Derbyshire is also an NR contributing editorOctober 16, 2001 2:30 p.m. But the experience of the twentieth century indicates that self-imposed restraints by a civilized power are worse than useless. They are interpreted by friend and foe alike as evidence, not of humanity, but of guilt and lack of righteous conviction.- Paul Johnson*, Modern Timesn the fall of 1939, during the early weeks of what in England was called "the phony war" (the Germans called it sitzkrieg - "the sitting-down war"), there was an illuminating exchange in the House of Commons. Some members of Parliament were putting pressure on Sir Kingsley Wood, the head of the air ministry, to bomb German munitions stores in the Black Forest. Sir Kingsley was shocked. "Are you aware it is private property?" he protested. "Why, you will be asking me to bomb Essen next!" Essen was the home of the famous Krupp munitions factories.Four years later the Royal Air Force firebombed Hamburg, completely leveling eight square miles of the city and slaughtering 40,000 people - most of them civilians - in one night alone. Six months later came the destruction of Dresden, a joint operation with the USAF, in which 135,000 people were incinerated or buried alive. The children of Dresden were in carnival costumes, as it was Shrove Tuesday. From Sir Kingsley Wood to "Bomber" Harris (Arthur Harris, Churchill's wartime chief of RAF Bomber Command, a strong proponent of massive aerial bombing), you see the coarsening effect of war, the moral slide that always occurs, especially when people come to feel that the existence of their country is at stake.I'm not sure it can be plausibly claimed that the U.S.A.'s existence is threatened by the Taliban, but I am sure that as the war proceeds and our own casualties mount we shall see - and, indeed, experience in ourselves - some of that moral coarsening. At the moment we are still in the Sir Kingsley Wood stage: taking care to drop one food package for every bomb, terribly concerned that our enemies and "coalition partners" understand that in spite of being driven to do some moderately unpleasant things we are, none the less, still really, really nice people at heart. Chances are this won't last. If Paul Johnson is right, as I believe he is, we should hope it doesn't. Nice doesn't win wars.The folly of this kinder, gentler warmaking is already being pointed out by a few dissidents bold enough to put a boot through the sheetrock wall of Emotional Correctness the media have been busily erecting since September 11th. Did you see The O'Reilly Factor last Friday? O'Reilly himself was off, and the program was hosted by John Kasich - a capable presenter, but one who punches well below O'Reilly's weight. One of Kasich's guests was Leonard Peikoff of the Ayn Rand Institute. Clearly and forcefully, yet politely and reasonably, Peikoff put the case for total war. War, he pointed out, is a violent conflict between two nations, which comes to an end when one of those nations has brought the other to its knees and stripped its people of any will to continue fighting. You do that by the severe application of brute force, not by dropping food parcels. It wasn't food parcels we were dropping on Tokyo and Berlin in 1945, he observed. Sir Kingsley Kasich was plainly shocked. What about the root causes? he asked indignantly. Didn't this whole situation arise in the first place because America had failed to share her bounty with the rest of the world? Peikoff swatted this down with the scorn it deserved. America's bounty, he pointed out, was created by Americans, who are under no moral obligation to share it with anyone else, especially since that sharing can only be accomplished by letting our government impose ever more taxes on us.Peikoff - who, as far as I am concerned, could run for mayor at this point - did not add, probably just because he didn't have the time, that a massive and ruthless application of force, breaking the enemy's will as swiftly as possible, is actually the more humane policy in the long run. Recall the story about the man who decided to cut off his dog's tail. He thought that a single one-time blow with the cleaver would be too traumatic for the poor creature, so instead he adopted a policy of cutting off a half-inch from the tail each day. That is pretty much how Lyndon Johnson conducted the bombing of North Vietnam - sparing the cities, sparing the dikes, approving targets personally. That ended, let me remind you, with the U.S.A. losing the war, run out of Vietnam with her own tail between her legs, and with those who had trusted in the might and goodness of America hanging on to helicopter skids, or left behind to be hustled off into concentration camps... and with all the people of Southeast Asia stuck under the rule of corrupt Leninist gangsters, bereft of liberty, law, and property, down to the present day.It would, of course, be grossly politically incorrect of me to refer to the United States of America as a Christian nation. I hope no one will mind too much, though, if I state that she is still, even in this hedonistic age, a Bible nation. Now the Bible gives us such insights as we are permitted to have into the mind of God; and the mind of God, like pretty much everything He created, turns out to have two sides. There is the thundering, irascible, vengeful yet ultimately just God who is most visible in the Old Testament; and then there is the embracing, forgiving, loving God who is more in evidence in the New Testament - yang and yin, the Daddy God and the Mommy God. (Yes, yes, I know that is an outrageous over-simplification. Just let me make my argument before you fire off that angry email setting me straight on points of theology.)Americans have, at various times, favored either one or the other of these aspects of the Almighty. In wartime, the Old Testament God tends to get more of a hearing, for obvious reasons - there are rather a lot of wars in the Old Testament. One of the small blessings we have received in this terrible time has been to hear "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" being sung in public, full throat. Just listen to the words, the imagery, of that most stirring of all America's patriotic songs: "Trampling" ... "wrath" ... "fearsome" ... "terrible". This is not Oprah's God. This is the God of the Old Testament, the God of Joshua and Judges; the God of Ehud and Jephthah; of Samson, who, in his war against the Philistines "smote them hip and thigh with a great slaughter"; of Gideon, who, let it be well recalled in this context, when the men of Israel begged him to become their king, said: "I will not rule over you ... the Lord shall rule over you"; of Saul and David, of whom the chronicler recorded with bleak simplicity that: "Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands."These are early days yet, though. We are still in New Testament mode at the moment, giving over valuable air-cargo space to food packages to be dropped to people who may never receive them. We are singing "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" but we are not hearing the words. The sword has been wonderfully swift, but not very terrible. I predict that, if there are further attacks against U.S. territory on the scale of the September 11th outrages, this will change. We shall turn to the God of the Old Testament, and narrow down our focus to a single war aim: victory, regardless of how much that victory might hurt the feelings of our enemies, or even of our friends. Then we shall smite those enemies hip and thigh, laying waste their cities and fields with our most terrible weapons. When we have won, we shall, of course, do all we can to help rebuild what we have laid waste, in the spirit of magnanimity and foresight that created two stable, prosperous nations out of post-WWII Germany and Japan. But first, we have to win.* I am sorry to have quoted from two different books by Paul Johnson on two successive Tuesdays. The only excuses I can offer are (a) he is exceptionally quotable, and (b) there are not many conservative historians to quote from.

Comments

  • john carrjohn carr Member Posts: 1,717 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Absolutely totally right on. Great article. They blew up our Marine barracks in Lebanon, we cut and ran. They bloodied our nose in Somalia, we cut and ran. We left the greatest war criminal in the world alive in Iraq. Dubya is showing some backbone in Afghanistan, but this war must not be run politically. Give the generals and admirals orders and let them go. We see what political control did to us in Viet Nam.
  • badboybobbadboybob Member Posts: 1,658 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Right on John!
    So many guns to buy. So little money.
  • .250Savage.250Savage Member Posts: 812 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Landis, *smack!* a kiss to your head (in the best brotherly tradition). Beautiful post.
    I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.--Voltare
  • Patrick OdlePatrick Odle Member Posts: 951 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I am proud to share this forum with someone who so evidently understands the meaning of war. It gripes the hell out of me to see Rumsfeld,Powel, and anyone in the present occupancy of power to run around to all these countrys seeking approval for doing the right thing. We should honor our innocent dead with such massive and horrible retaliation that anyone in any country would be hesitant to critize. Worked before and would work again.
  • alledanalledan Member Posts: 19,541
    edited November -1
    What should bother us about this afgani "war" is the repeated "limited engagements"-Limited ground troops" etc.We left the iraqi situation limited [read half assed!] and we still have to deal with hussein. This appears to be the scenario we will eventually play with Bin laden and the Taliban.If we are to live without the danger of terrorism, we must go in and kick the * out theses lunatics once and for all! we must strike hard and fast and without mercy. We must present terror to the terrorist far greater than anything they can imagine. We must bring horror upon them in such measure that they will shiver and tremble at the mere mention of America! This must be done with or without the consent of other countries-we are bound to no one! We are a super power and we must act that way!Kinder and gentler is a term that should be used to denote your local paster or liberals not AMERICANS in general!The shame of a nation like ours to be held hostage and in fear by a POS like Bin laden who is one step up from running around naked and hunting his food with a stick is abhorable!There was a time in this nation that when an event such as the WTC disaster occured, the perpetrating nation would be in smoldering ruins and their armies entrails would be hanging from our tank treads!When you hear the word "limited engagements" your hearing Colon powells mindless attempt to carry on a half assed war. It was his brain dead idea to stop at the highway of death and not pursue the Iraqi republican guard and now look-we are back at square one with Saddam Hussein.There was and old saying that if you were in for a penny you were in for a pound. Nowadays if your in for a penny your in for a penny and that"s it! It looks like we are in just for the penny and the other side will come again for a pound![This message has been edited by alledan (edited 10-20-2001).]
  • Patrick OdlePatrick Odle Member Posts: 951 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Damm straight alledanThose that are so dumb as not to realize in time will most certainly face greater terror in the comming days.God knows I would love to be wrong about this one,but I hold little hope for that.
  • landislandis Member Posts: 230 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    When you 'Pull your punches', your allies will think you don't have strong convictions on the conflict. Your potential enemies will think you are weak. And nobody will end up thinking you compassionate with the food you airdrop. They won't even remember. That ends up only addressing our guilt in fighting someone, even if they deserve it, in our attempt to have the self image of the "good guy". Our enemies will think you naive. And most of all, your enemy will despise you even more for the disrespect (in a twisted psychotic sort of way) you give him by not giving it all you got. Most of all, when you 'Pull your punches' you extend the conflict further into the future, until that time you do have the moral courage to actually fight, and that will cost even more American lives, both civilian and military. And it does take moral courage to fight viciously. Nobody wants to be judged by CNN who is judging every bomb crater. But are we fighting to win a war or to win CNN's approval?Something very unpopular will ultimately be needed to be done by our leadership. It will sound horrible, and the media will attack it, at least at first. BUT, Nobody's opinion matters, except our own wheather it is CNN or Norway or the entire UN. We have been hurt, and if we are going to fight, than lets party, bring it on with all we got. If we are going to make some feelgood politically correct Military overture while trying to make friends at the same time then we are kidding ourselves and wasting the time and money of our Military.
  • travelortravelor Member Posts: 442 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    yea buddy, and more than likely the "friends" we try to make will only be our friends as long as it suits themselves. the tide always turns, and usually it leaves a lot of refuse on the beach as it washes out to sea. your true friends let you know who they are without you having to convince them that they need to be....and if they arn't truely our friends, than what difference does it make anyway?
    keep lots of extra uppers for your ar..you can change often enough to keep the thing from over heating...what ever caliber fits the moment..~Secret Select Society of Suave Stylish Smoking Jackets~
  • mudgemudge Member Posts: 4,225 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    I agree with all the above. It's almost like we're fighting for "style points". Being a fight fan, I liken this to a fight between a "boxer" and a "puncher". The "boxer" hasn't got the power to knock the "puncher" out so he'll pitty-pat as long as he can. We, in this case are the "puncher". We've got no business trying to outbox the "boxer". That's only going to get us hit again and again. We need to hit the sumbitches as hard as we can, as many times as necessary to put 'em down! Mudge
    I can't come to work today. The voices said, STAY HOME AND CLEAN THE GUNS!
  • landislandis Member Posts: 230 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Rumsfeld was asked today why reporters were not allowed to go along with special forces (as if they could keep up) on their missions today. One asked why they were not allowed to "keep an eye on" the US troops actions, as if they might do something unseemly, or politically incorrect. You see what I mean, the moral relativism which gives any opposition equal moral weight is ultimately to work against us and our goals, and into the hands of our enemies. This is tough to ignore, but we must or we will beat ourselves before Osama can, in which case we are weak.
Sign In or Register to comment.