POLITICALLY CORRECT WAR

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10182006/posto...ters.htm?page=0

October 18, 2006 -- HAVE we lost the will to win wars? Not just in Iraq, but anywhere? Do we really believe that being nice is more important than victory?

It's hard enough to bear the timidity of our civilian leaders - anxious to start wars but without the guts to finish them - but now military leaders have fallen prey to political correctness. Unwilling to accept that war is, by its nature, a savage act and that defeat is immoral, influential officers are arguing for a kinder, gentler approach to our enemies.

They're going to lead us into failure, sacrificing our soldiers and Marines for nothing: Political correctness kills.

Obsessed with low-level "tactical" morality - war's inevitable mistakes - the officers in question have lost sight of the strategic morality of winning. Our Army and Marine Corps are about to suffer the imposition of a new counterinsurgency doctrine designed for fairy-tale conflicts and utterly inappropriate for the religion-fueled, ethnicity-driven hyper-violence of our time.

We're back to struggling to win hearts and minds that can't be won.

The good news is that the Army and Marine Corps worked together on the new counterinsurgency doctrine laid out in Field Manual 3-24 (the Army version). The bad news is that the doctrine writers and their superiors came up with fatally wrong prescriptions for combating today's insurgencies.

Astonishingly, the doctrine ignores faith-inspired terrorism and skirts ethnic issues in favor of analyzing yesteryear's political insurgencies. It would be a terri- fic manual if we returned to Vietnam circa 1963, but its recommendations are profoundly misguided when it comes to fighting terrorists intoxicated with religious visions and the smell of blood.

Why did the officers in question avoid the decisive question of religion? Because the answers would have been ugly.

Wars of faith and tribe are immeasurably crueler and tougher to resolve than ideological revolts. A Maoist in Malaya could be converted. But Islamist terrorists who regard death as a promotion are not going to reject their faith any more than an ethnic warrior can - or would wish to - change his blood identity.

So the doctrine writers ignored today's reality.

Al Qaeda and other terror organizations have stated explicitly and repeatedly that they're waging a global jihad to re-establish the caliphate. Yet the new manual ignores religious belief as a motivation.

The politically correct atmosphere in Washington deems any discussion of religion as a strategic factor indelicate: Let our troops die, just don't hurt anyone's feelings.

So the doctrine writers faked it, treating all insurgencies as political. As a result, they prescribed an excellent head-cold treatment - for a cancer patient. The text is a mush of pop-zen mantras such as "Sometimes doing nothing is the best reaction," "The best weapons do not shoot," or "The more force used, the less effective it is."

That's just nutty. Should we have done nothing in the wake of 9/11? Would everything have been OK if we'd just been nicer? What non-lethal "best weapons" might have snagged Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora, where the problem was too little military force, not too much violence?

Should we have sent fewer troops to Iraq, where inadequate numbers crippled everything we attempted? Will polite chats with tribal chiefs stop the sectarian violence drenching Iraq in blood?

On the surface, the doctrine appears sober and serious. But it's morally frivolous and intellectually inert, a pathetic rehashing of yesteryear's discredited "wisdom" on counterinsurgencies and, worst of all, driven by a stalker-quality infatuation with T.E. Lawrence, "Lawrence of Arabia," who not only was a huckster of the first order, but whose "revolt in the desert" was a near-meaningless sideshow of a sideshow.

Lawrence is quoted repeatedly, with reverence. We might as well cite the British generals of the Great War who sent men over the top in waves to face German machine guns.

You can trust two kinds of officers: Those who read a great deal and those who don't read at all. But beware the officer who reads just a little and falls in love with one book. A little education really is a dangerous thing.

The new manual is thick - length is supposed to substitute for insight. It should be 75 percent shorter and 100 percent more honest. If issued to our troops in its present form, it will lead to expensive failures. Various generals have already tried its prescriptions in Iraq - with discouraging results, to put it mildly.

We've reached a fateful point when senior officers seek to evade war's brute reality. Our leaders, in and out of uniform, must regain their moral courage. We can't fight wars of any kind if the entire chain of command runs for cover every time an ambitious journalist cries, "War crime!" And sorry: Soccer balls are no substitute for bullets when you face fanatics willing to kill every child on the playing field.

In war, you don't get points for good manners. It's about winning. Victory forgives.

The new counterinsurgency doctrine recommends forbearance, patience, understanding, non-violent solutions and even outright passivity. Unfortunately, our enemies won't sign up for a replay of the Summer of Love in San Francisco. We can't treat hardcore terrorists like Halloween pranksters on mid-term break from prep school.

Where is the spirit of FDR and George C. Marshall, who recognized that the one unbearable possibility was for the free world to lose?

We discount the value of ferocity - as a practical tool and as a deterrent. But war's immutable law - proven yet again in Iraq - is that those unwilling to pay the butcher's bill up front will pay it with compound interest in the end.

The new counterinsurgency doctrine is dishonest and cowardly.

We don't face half-hearted Marxists tired of living in the jungle, but religious zealots who behead prisoners to please their god and who torture captives by probing their skulls with electric drills. We're confronted by hatreds born of blood and belief and madmen whose appetite for blood is insatiable.

And we're afraid to fight.

Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer.

As-salaamu Alayqoum w Rahmutallah

Quote
Do we really believe that being nice is more important than victory?
Unquote

yes

w Alayqoumu Salaam

Samuel, that's why many more will die. When the hippies of yesteryear whined and cried until we withdrew from Vietnam (too early), Pol Pot went on to mass genocide. Fifteen thousand people were tortured to death in one of his prisons, S-21 was the name of it if you care to look it up, and SIX people survived. The blood of every one of those murdered can be laid at the feet of the 'make love, not war' crowd.

Ralph Peters is obviously a man who understands what it takes to wage war and protect innocent life. We need more men like him in the higher ranks of our military. War is not inherently evil. Jesus Christ Himself will be making war when He returns, so it cannot be. The jihad is evil war, not to be mistaken with protecting those it seeks to kill, taking on the terrorists is a just war.

Do not be wishy-washy and refuse to stand up for right. Rev. 3:14-16 These things saith the A-men', the faithful and true witness, the beginning of creation of God; I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would that thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. Being 'nice' to the devil and his legion for the sake of political correctness is not a Christian ideal, as it is the epitamy of being 'lukewarm'. Do not mistake loving your enemy with being 'nice' to them.

Thank you for the post, Emiljoe.

Your sister in Christ, Angela

Very well said. Things has really things in the world since the 60's. Hmmmm I was just thinging ya know Israel became a nation then.
Kim

As-salaamu Alayqoum w Rahmutallah

So war is now justified then is it!?!?!?!?

Does my memory serve me well when i remember JESUS saying to TURN THE OTHER CHEEK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Everyone is saying that the Muslims are taught not to turn the other cheek, well what is America NOT doing right now!?!??!?!? Not very much cheek-turning thats what!
So JESUS killing people IS justified, but it doesn't justify US doing that.
The very reason that Iraq is filled with violence is because the US is there! There was no suicide bombings back before then, although Saddham Hussein was technically a terrorist. If someone had to die, why couldn't someone just assassinate the Iraq leaders!?!??!?!?!
I swear America will be the death of the world and probably millions of people, and perhaps even me, seeing as i don't seem to matter in America's eyes along with other Arabs and Muslims!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Quote
S-21 was the name of it if you care to look it up.
Unquote

Well, i'll try to overcome my Arab "ignorance" then shouldn't I!

(w Alayqoum Salaam)

Hello Samuel.

Things are what they are. So what do you think the U.S. should do now?


sojourner

This was the original meaning of 'turning the other cheek'. Enlightening, isn't it?

Iraq has been filled with violence since before the Romans ever conceived of building mud huts, which predates America by a bit, wouldn't you say? They were using swords before the development of explosives, they just prefer bombs now (more expedient way of killing people). Yes, suicide bombings have been occuring since before Saddam Hussein, it's even documented on The History Channel! Even if the entire north american continent did not exist, the Middle East would be in turmoil, with one exception. It is entirely possible that Israel would not even exists as she does today. That's not to say she wouldn't exist, she will exist according to the Word of God, but it would not be as she does now. What would the shape of the Middle East and Israel be today if Hitler had his way without America being THE MAJOR contributor (and the Russian winter) to his defeat? He had an unholy alliance with the grand moffi of Arabia (whose darling nephew was Yasser Arafat) to exterminate the Jews, also. After he had accomplished this, he would have gone on to exterminate all 'subhumans', everyone not blond haired and blue-eyed! Pardon me, but wouldn't that be just about everyone of Middle eastern descent? Would you not agree that war against Hitler was entirely justified?

There is a big difference in a 'justified' or just war, and ones that are merely rationalized, such as Hitler's war against the Jews and the islamic jihadist's war against all 'infidels' have been.

Your sister in Christ, Angela

As-salaamu Alayqoum w Rahmutallah

Quote
Things are what they are. So what do you think the U.S. should do now?
Unquote

Personally, i think that George W Bush should be impeached! I don't believe though that the coalition should leave Iraq because, now that they have destroyed the country, it is their responsibility to rebuild what they brought down.

AngelaNPraise, i'm sorry for lashing out at you like that in my last post and i'll try to be more careful about how i express myself.
I don't think i really need to know the history of the cheek-turning action, i simply think JESUS' message was "have the grace to endure more punishment and persecution." Also VIOLENCE BEGETS VIOLENCE, violence leads to more violence, killing leads to more killing. If America strikes back at the terrorists, they'll just use that as an excuse to strike again. YOU DON"T NEED VIOLENCE TO BEAT YOUR ENEMY!!!!!!!!!!!!
An excellent example is the early Church; the Romans massacred Christians in their thousands, possibly even hundreds of thousands, but in the end, what happened without the Christians striking back?, The Roman Empire converted to Christianity! By enduring persectution our predesesors gained control of their enemies and converted them. The same thing can apply to our situation, if we endure persecution, we can have the terrorists marvel at our endurance, faith and forgiveness of them, and who knows, they just might even convert! Its happened before and it can certainly happen again.

w Alayqoum w Salaam

Dear Samuel,

The main problem with impeaching Bush is that we would end up with Cheney as president. We can't fire the whole administration because that would be revolution. Revolution would paralyze the nation. And believe it or not there are many other things going on with the U.S. than the war in Iraq. However, I am glad to see that you understand that the U.S. cannot back out of Iraq. And while you may be concerned with the rebuilding of the Iraqi infrastructure, we are dealing with our sons coming home without their arms and legs. Of which we could have avoided most of if we had initiated war the way it has been fought for milleniums. Instead, we went in trying to save the infrastructure and it has costed us dearly.

Sam, if you believe that we are living in the final days you have to understand that everything is happening for a reason.

Peace,
sojourner

Samuel, your apology to me is graciously accepted. Yes, I do believe that we will win more souls with love and kindness than is possible with any other way. Jesus only wants those who come willingly and of their own accordance, so it would be pointless to convert by any other means. Our government, though, is not interested whatsoever in pushing a Christain doctrine, it's interested in stabilizing a country which had been terrorized by it's own rulers. We would love to be able to get out of there, but only when they are strong enough to be left on their own. Iraq's own government has asked us to stay a while longer, knowing they cannot resist the current insurgency. We have BUILT what they previously did not have, not just rebuilt what was destroyed, and are continuing to do so.

The entire Roman Empire did not convert to Christainity as a whole. When the Roman Emporer Constantine converted to Christianity he issued an edict allowing Christianity to be practiced. The average roman did not like the idea of giving up their pagan gods; however, Constantine urged his new found faith and many did believe. I'm sure a lot of them simply wanted to please their emporer, as well. It would be along the lines of Iran's president converting to Christianity today. A lot of muslims would be more accepting of Christ, and many would be reached, but would I surmise that he would not live a week!

As far as your comments concerning President Bush, it's not for me to forgive. You need to ask him for forgiveness. As far as I can see, anytime someone stands up on the side of right, he is condemned for it. He is certainly in my prayers, as we are commanded to pray for our leaders. From your vehemence against him, I'm getting the idea of how the far-left media is portraying him internationally. It's just more of the devil's influence in today's world. I should add the media to my prayer list, too.

Your sister in Christ, Angela

P.S. I read once that 'violence begets violence only when done incorrectly. If done correctly, the enemy is destroyed, hence, no more violence.' So true from a military standpoint!!!