|
|
A Peril Beyond Their Reckoning
Posted by Will Collier · 12 May 2004
Remember the ending of Braveheart, Mel Gibson's fictionalized William Wallace bio? After Wallace was brutally tortured to death by the English, the film's Robert I of Scotland (aka, Robert The Bruce) intones: After the beheading, William Wallace's body was torn to pieces. His head was set on London Bridge, his arms and legs sent to the four corners of Britain as a warning. I hesitate to ascribe a great deal of logical reasoning to the thugs who murdered Nick Berg. Barbarians commit such acts first and foremost because they want to, and offer up twisted justifications as an afterthought. That understood, Berg's killers were undoubtably well-versed in Osama Bin Laden's "strong horse" theory, nurtured by thirty-odd years of American withdrawls and second-guessing. By butchering an innocent man on camera, they probably sought not only to assuage their own blood-thirst, but also to pull a Saigon/Teheran/Beirut/Mogadishu (or Madrid?)--throw blood in America's face and watch the 'weak horse' turn and trot away from the battlefield. Time may well change perceptions and soften reactions, but one day on, Berg's decapitation did not have the effect the jihadis planned. Despite the newfound squeamishness of the American press, video and pictures of the murder have made the now-familiar end-around to the public via the internet, and the immediate response is not exactly "Let's quit." I offer up a few nuggets of anecdotal evidence, the first from a college professor (no, not Glenn Reynolds) posting late yesterday on a non-political message board: We have moaned and groaned for weeks now concerning the prison photos. We have worried about our perception in the world. Today we were confronted with just whom and what we are at war. War is war and it is not pretty. But we should see it through to the very end, totally humble these people, then build them back up so they may actually give back to civilization. It worked on better societies in the 1940's, and look at the Japanese and the Germans today. And the Arabic people are far less advanced than the afore mentioned nations. It is time to take the kid gloves off and get down to business. I am reminded of how Rome quelled rebellions and wars: with thousands of dead Jews, Britons, Gauls, and Germans. Worked for them, why can't it work for us? Not an appealing prospect, but I daresay this isn't an unusual point of view in the US today. As others have noted, we hear a lot about the alleged volitility of the 'Arab street,' but to date, the 'American street' appears to be the group that is not only energized, but also capable of turning its anger into policy--deadly effective policy. The writer also brings up a point that almost everyone, on every side of the war, has missed or avoided to date. We talk about how Germany and Japan were pacified, democratized, and enriched after World War II. We haven't talked much about how they were utterly destroyed and broken first. Consider this as well, from an email to Andrew Sullivan: I've never really liked this war and my disgust for George Bush and his planning for this war is immeasurable. However, I agree with your piece "Insane Spin." I am still fuming about the beheading of Nick Berg, and people throughout the world need to understand the contrasting images of that situation and the Abu Ghraib prison fiasco. The world needs to understand that we will get to the bottom of this problem no matter where it leads. In contrast, al Qaeda and it's murderers flaunt this type of cruelty because they believe it will make Americans run away. In fact, it pisses us off and this type of crap needs to shown to the American people so that we all know who we are dealing with. Taking matters to a disctinctly possible next level, there's this, from James Lileks: Simply put: if a US city is nuked, the US will have to nuke someone, or let it stand that the United States can lose a city without cost to the other side. Defining “the other side” would be difficult, of course – do you erase Tehran to punish the mullahs? Make a crater out of Riyahd? These are exactly the sort of decisions we never want to make. But let’s say it happens. Baltimore: fire and wind. Gone. That horrible day would clarify things once and for all. It’s one thing for someone in a distant city to cheer the fall of two skyscrapers: from a distance, it looks like a bloody nose. But erasing a city is a different matter. That's the crux of the problem, too. Whether anyone (other than Lileks) is willing to voice the facts or not, ending the threat of Islamist terrorism isn't just about saving Americans. It's about saving Arabs and Muslims, too. Consider this. America went to war over 3,000 murders. The determination to wage that war has just been reinforced a single barbaric death. What would we do if the dead numbered 30,000, or 300,000? The old Cold War balance of terror worked, in its harsh way, because in the end the Soviets knew in no uncertain terms that we would retaliate in kind--hell, in spades--if so much as one Sov nuke ever exploded on American soil, or the soil of an ally. One has to wonder if the Islamofascists have thought through their own war enough to realize just how much their own people would suffer if they ever succeed in killing tens or hundreds of thousands of Americans. Now, the Soviet leadership didn't give a tinker's damn about what happened to their own people, otherwise they wouldn't have murdered so many millions of them in the first place. But they very much cared about their own skins, and dachas, and power, and in the end, that was enough to keep them more-or-less in check until the Evil Empire collapsed like the thug-supported house of cards it was. I doubt very much if the various leaders of the Islamofascist terror groups care any more for their own people than the Soviets did. Today's radical Islamists encourage their neighbors' children to blow themselves up in pizza parlors, and preach the sermons of the death-cult in calls to "martyrdom" in the name of the Faith. Would the fear of obliteration of Fallujah, or Damascus, or Tehran really cause them to turn from their current path? The rest of us can only pray we never have to find out. And soldier on to prevent that day from coming. Comments
They've confused our praying that it not be needed with thinking that we've forgotten Kipling's The Grave of the Hundred Dead. http://whitewolf.newcastle.edu.au/words/authors/K/KiplingRudyard/verse/p2/hunderedhead.html Posted by: htom at May 12, 2004 10:38 AMChallenging the only country who has nuked another in anger to a contest over who can kill people in the most creative way in NOT a good idea for al-Qaeda and the Islamofascists. We try to be civilized and mindful of human life and suffering, but when things get serious the USA can fight dirtier than anyone else can possibly imagine...and we win. Minutemen fighting "indian style"? Want to fill in the next blank? Turn Mecca into a glowing crater? Have al-Qaeda prisoners re-enact the end of Spartacus on the roads to Baghdad? I hope to God we don't have to go there, but if their nihilistic culture forces our hand, we can and we will. And we'll win either way. Posted by: Mike M at May 12, 2004 11:18 AMI think some are losing sight of the purpose of terrorism. In this case, Al Qaeda is not trying to make us back down. They are trying to rile us up. They want us to over-react. They want us to act strongly. Their theory, similar to the Bolsheviks and early communists, is that all the world of Islam needs is a sufficient amount of provocation to unite and destroy us. They believe if they are united that they can never be defeated. They can only be united if the US and the west attack them. That's why they have been active in France too. It galls them that the west is not united in warring against them. By keeping out, however perniciously, France and Germany are preventing Islam from claiming that we are waging a new crusade. These murderers must be destroyed thoroughly and painfully. But their goal is the same as ours right now. They want us to escalate our war against them. Posted by: Mike Rentner at May 12, 2004 11:36 AMOne has to wonder if the Islamofascists have thought through their own war enough to realize just how much their own people would suffer if they ever succeed in killing tens or hundreds of thousands of Americans. Considering the number of innocent Iraqi civillians caught in suicide bombs and even specifically targeted recently, is there any wonder left at all that these animals even CARE about their own!? Seriously, if they think that they can succeed by killing children on buses, I really have to wonder if these bastards have any humanity in them to begin with! Posted by: DakRoland at May 12, 2004 11:45 AMThe approach to these creatures must be multi-level. All this talk of WWII, Germany, and Japan. My, aren't we just the Greatest Generation II. Do you seriously believe that the nincompoops we have in charge now are capable of carrying out a mission in any way comparable to our success in WWII? Have they managed to demonstrate it so far? Until they have, quit trying to lionize the Bushies and yourselves with the laurels of WWII glory. The same goes for those who love the Vietnam and quagmire language. This "which is the more apt analogy: WWII or Vietnam?" argument is silly and embarrassing. It's not illuminating; rather, it's obfuscating. Posted by: King Bass at May 12, 2004 12:21 PMAs many have said, this is a long term war--a decades long war. If it lasts the entire century, I will not be surprised. Of course, you can always vote for John Kerry, let Kerry surrender, and the war will end quickly. Then you must learn to live under Sharia law, women must be content to be mistreated, and non-muslims must accept being dhimmi. It could be worse, the Soviets could have won the cold war. Posted by: Johnson at May 12, 2004 12:25 PMwhats worse, sharia or communism?? as for the idea that we should be worried about alq uniting the arab world due to an over reaction on our part... a: you only lose when you're side loses heart and you don't use necessary means to quell the insurrection.. czars lost heart, us lost heart in vietnam despite the fact that we were winning... uniting against an overreaction doesn't win, its in getting the other side so ashamed that they give up (also known as dems) b: they can't win, period... people united yada yada yada, but they can and will be defeated, especially if we don't give up... you only need so may nukes to win... Posted by: hey at May 12, 2004 12:45 PMOur first response should be the one the Israelis took after Munich: Hunt the killers and planners down like animals, kill them like animals and publicize the hell out of it. Posted by: H. D. Miller at May 12, 2004 01:03 PMJust a damn minute. Collier and Lileks both make an excellent point - one that I've seen made several times in discussions like this - and then completely ignore it. If something catastrophic did happen to the US - a nuke or bio attack or something that wipes out 6 or 7 figures of people - who would we retaliate against? That's a showstopper question, people! It's not something we can afford to delay thinking about until after the shit hits the fan; you can't keep going down the ooh-rah let's-make-this-war-a-REAL-war road until you answer that question. Here's food for thought: Bin Laden pretty much bought the country of Afghanistan and used it as his base of operations like a Bond villain. That gave us a valid target to crush; if 9/11 had been a WMD attack instead of airliners, I have no doubt we'd have turned Kabul into a sheet of glass. But Bin Laden will never make that mistake again, and neither will al Queda. You can put the safeties back on the silos, General Ripper, we'll never have the luxury of an obvious target like that again... Posted by: legion at May 12, 2004 01:32 PMMr Rentner: Maybe. That is, maybe their goal is provocation and not "make the coward Americans give up". It's difficult for us to say with surety, as both are supportable interpretations. However, it should be noted that "doing what the other guy wants" is not necessarily akin to defeat. The other guy, after all, isn't necessarily thinking very well. The Islamists want (at one level, see above) a holy war. We might, God forbid, end up being forced to give them one. The problem with that from their point of view - though they don't seem to realise it - is that they'd lose, in a bloodbath the likes of which the world has not yet seen. (Thus my God forbid, above. Like Mr. Collier, I'd rather not see that, since I have a strange aversion to massive death and destruction.) Posted by: Sigivald at May 12, 2004 02:15 PMUm, King Bass? Isn't there a book out about the 13(?) generations since the founding of our country? Guess who the millenials are. GGII. Problem is, my tail-end boomer gen and the Gen X gen don't have the experience the GG did, never having to grow up in a depression, contrary to what some might beleive the last 3 years was. But somehow I think we're going to get a lot of practice. Posted by: Sandy P at May 12, 2004 02:21 PMlegion: You are making a very large assumption, namely, that we would give a shit. I don't. You see, I've read the Quran, and I understand it's commandments WRT infidels like me (and probably you): death, slavery, or conversion. That makes it them or us. I pick us. I would start with Riyadh and work out. Posted by: SDN at May 12, 2004 03:43 PMSandy P, What in the world are you talking about??? Do you believe in astrology too? The people who come after us will decide if we're GGII. GGI didn't go around talking about how great they were. This is too stupid a conversation for me to continue. Posted by: King Bass at May 12, 2004 03:53 PM"Do you seriously believe that the nincompoops we have in charge now are capable of carrying out a mission in any way comparable to our success in WWII? Have they managed to demonstrate it so far?" Yes. Yehudit, When I said comparable, I meant "similar or equivalent," not something like "able to compare and contrast, as in apples and oranges," as you seem to have taken it to mean. Posted by: King Bass at May 13, 2004 07:17 AMI've always wondered about who we'd retaliate against if a WMD attack hit us. These Islamofascists just don't care about retaliation. Unfortunately, there's no other side to participate in a Mutually Assured Destruction game. Maybe, subtly, the US should let it be known that if a nuke or a bio-terror attack ever appears on our shores, Mecca and Medina would no longer exist. Maybe they value those sites enough to think twice. (I'm not sure) Sure it would piss off our 'allies' in Saudi Arabia, but who the f*ck cares? Posted by: Nato at May 13, 2004 07:37 AMSure it would piss off our 'allies' in Saudi Arabia, but who the f*ck cares? Maybe you can be Secretary of Defense!!!! Posted by: King Bass at May 13, 2004 07:58 AMGlass mat the entire arena and start all over. The problem with that is those people are like cockroaches and some will survive. Then it becomes easy to pick off a few hundred than a few million. Either way, those stink monkeys deserve no right to live anywhere. And that includes here in MY COUNTRY....AMERICA Posted by: Rocky at May 13, 2004 10:02 AMGlass mat the entire arena and start all over. The problem with that is those people are like cockroaches and some will survive. Then it becomes easy to pick off a few hundred than a few million. Either way, those stink monkeys deserve no right to live anywhere. And that includes here in MY COUNTRY....AMERICA Thanks for that insight into a conservative's mind. Posted by: King Bass at May 13, 2004 11:01 AM |
MDS - Give Until It Hurts Terror War Scorecard Watching America 50 Things American Cancer Ablation Center Buy VodkaPundit Stuff
"If Janeane Garofalo had ever met VodkaPundit, she'd be Anne Coulter by now."
Ann Althouse
Across the Atlantic
American Realpolitik
Albion's Seedlings
Justene Adamec
The Argument Clinic
Todd A
Moe Freedman
Allah Is In the House
Body in Mind
Ben Domenech
Duck Season
Banana Counting Monkey
Ted Barlow
Eric Alterman
American Times
|
     |
