CHINA CONFIDENTIAL states the obvious, at least to us.
[..] The argument that there is no military solution is worse than flawed; it is stupid–and suicidal. There is in fact only a military solution–just as there was only a military solution to the problem of dealing with the Nazi/Fascist menace. Diplomacy precedes and follows war; it should neither coincide nor interfere with armed conflict.
If Islamism can’t be defeated militarily, it can’t be defeated–period. Persuasion won’t work; but bombing will. Not the modern shock-and-awe variety, mind you, but the kind of bombing that reduced Nazi Germany to rubble. In short, the West will only be victorious if it returns to the Western way of warfare that won the day in World War II.
The times call for a truly cold and clinical approach. The hell with winning hearts and minds; winning is all that matters, regardless of the cost in enemy lives and property. [..]
“It has been said one can kill the believer, but not the belief. The West should abandon such philosophical distinctions and recognize that it is enough to eliminate all the true Islamic radical believers to put their beliefs on ice in a very dark deep almost inaccessible cave for a very long time.”
Bill, this is a nice approach. As soon as you or anyone else demonstrates a reasonable way to distinguish “true Islamic radical believers” from “moderates,” I would be inclined to go along; however, the tenets of Islam force me to conclude that we in the West must fight all Islam as though our cultural existence depended upon it. Because it does. Islam has marched relentlessly for 14 centuries unless weakened to the point that it is unable to prosecute its war. A weak, multicultural West is no match for a determined Islam.
Bill, no question there is a fear factor. Fighting the whole of the Islamic world makes child’s play out of the cold war. Even then the left argued “better red than dead”. We have yet to have the left argue that being under the boot of Islam is better then fighting for our freedoms. The left just doesn’t accept that our choice is that stark.
The times certainly do call for a truly cold and clinical approach to eliminate the scourge of radical Islamists of all degrees.
It is tough to be cold, clinical and calculating when you are overwhelmed by fear of radical Islam. It is not however just radical Islam that the West fears.
The West is well aware there are 1.3 billion Muslims in the world.
The West has seen and felt the sting from of a great many Muslims and a deadly sting from some Muslims who, while not necessarily professing radical Islamist views and are ordinarily described as moderate Muslims, still rise in outrage to defend the Islamic radicals should they perceive any Western words or acts in defence of the West, as some kind of slur on Islam or Muslims.
To mount an all out offensive against radical Islam both within Muslim nations and within Western nations, creates fear in Western minds that the radical Islamists would have a virtual inexhaustable supply of foot soldier killers from the Moderate Muslim ranks, both within Muslim nations and within Western nations to draw from.
The West also fears for its life line to oil being compromised should the West mount an all out offensive against radical Islam. As was seen back in 1973, the OPEC nations turned off the oil spiggot and the West, as dependent then as now on oil suffered. The painful memory of the oil crisis of 1973 that hurt individuals and industry has not been forgotten.
In a war to be waged against radical Islam, that war properly should be taken to the Saudis and other OPEC nations that are responsible in good measure for the indoctrination of many of the world’s Muslims in the Wahabi version of Islam and consequently the radicalizing of many of the world’s Muslims within Muslim nations and within the West.
The West has a very real problem with Muslim radical 5th columnists within their nations and just as bad a problem in failing to realistically address the threat and danger posed by these Muslim 5th columnists and potential 5th columnists out of fear of offending the principles of Western multiculturism and expose themselves to that horror of horror accusation of racism should they breach to rules of political correctness.
There is a serious question put by serious people which is will the current status quo way the West deals with the radical Islamic and Muslim world avert an all out war with radical Islam and various parts of the Muslim world and still leave the West in its position of superiority?
If not, will fewer Muslim and Western deaths and much less misery be caused by now launching a massive overall attack against radical Islamists of all degrees, be they nations, groups or individuals or will waiting allow for the radical Islamists to gather even more strength so that the inevitable all out war between the West and radical Islam will be that much more difficult and costly?
It has been said one can kill the believer, but not the belief. The West should abandon such philosophical distinctions and recognize that it is enough to eliminate all the true Islamic radical believers to put their beliefs on ice in a very dark deep almost inaccessible cave for a very long time.
The only way to silence Islam is to destroy Mecca and Medina, to make them radioactive. The reason Muslims want to capture or destroy Jerusalem, in addition to the fact that it is Dar al-Harb that used to be Dar al-Islam, is that it would prove conclusively that Islam is superior to Judaism (and its offspring, Christianity). Every time they say, “Allahu akbar,” they are saying Allah is greater, greater than the G-d of Israel (not the same as Allah). If they capture or destroy Jerusalem, there ain’t gonna be no Messiah, no Third Temple, no fulfillment of Judaism. The plan of the G-d of Israel will have been thwarted by the plan of Allah.
One, two, three hundred thousand? – – a million? How many people will lose their lives before this is realized?