So, what do we do now?

At your command, BigAl. In fact, my first post will feature you. A couple weeks ago I asked for everyone, but especially liberal readers of this blog for their positive ideas on what America should do now to counter the jihad that is being waged against us. After a false start, and to his great credit, BigAl was the only one to come through with a concrete suggestion. Here, to get the discussion started, it is:

Don,

I’m back with the positive ideas you requested. I’ve said these things in a previous post and no one commented. I really don’t know enough about effective war tactics to say that my ideas are perfect…but I think a sincere listener knows what I’m saying (especially compared to the current strategy).

I just know that Sun Tzu said that the biggest key to victory in any war is the use of spies.

I hate any and all wars, but if I were a war mongerer, and truly believed the Iranians are going to kill us all if we don’t stop them..I would do the following:

1) Remove the US military from the population centers (cities and towns) of Iraq to military bases in sparsely populated areas and on the borders. This will allow us to maintain a serious military presence and be ready to guard against interference from Iran, Syria or any one else in the ME who may try to mess with the situation.

AND it removes the bulk of the members of the military OUT of the middle of a civil war but still in a position where they can help if help is needed (in Iraq or anywhere in ME). This will reduce the number of deaths and/or casualties significantly.

2) Use the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, and the elite special forces to conduct the brunt of the war–in an undercover/stealth fashion. If the special forces/CIA/FBI/ Special Forces is not equipped to handle fighting the brunt of the war–then we need to change that quickly.

They should receive the full support of the Air Force, Navy, and Army for anything they need at any time. But do everything possible to limit the combat missions–along with intelligence gathering to members of special forces/CIA/FBI, etc.

No more US military members driving around or standing around (in uniform) in the cities to be used as target practice for insurgents and/or terrorists.

Also, I know special forces are a part of the Army, Navy, and Air Force. I am just saying that ONLY special forces –with help from and along side of the CIA, FBI, NSA, ETC should be used to conduct combat missions.

To win this war (especially the propaganda war), we need to keep a low-profile in the middle-east.

3) Talk to the enemy (Iran). Face to Face. Show the world we are the ones playing fairly and not being deaf to what everyone else is saying.

4) At the same time, send in special forces, CIA, FBI, to Iran, if necessary–and start making sure they will never develop nuclear weapons that threaten everyone (especially Israel). Publicly deny any and all claims by Iran, Syria or anyone else that we are conducting secret military operations. Keep the war small by pretending like there is no war going on.

DQ again. I was surprised at this response. Essentially, BigAl is suggesting we carry out the entire war with the kind of covert operations that conservatives generally love and liberals general hate. I don’t even know if such a thing is possible; I seriously doubt we have enough covert operatives (special forces) to pull it off, but at least it is a highly original idea.

So what do you all think? Is BigAl on to something? Or what should we do? Not just what should we do about Iraq, where it appears there are no good options. What should we do about the entire jihad being waged world-wide against Westerners, non-Muslims and our values and our way of life? I look forward to your ideas.

del.icio.us | digg it

Be Sociable, Share!
  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ ymarsakar

    I am only taking helen’s encouragement to heart. Going wild.

  • Trimegistus

    Helen:

    Your suggestion that we attend services at a mosque just reinforces what I’ve said. Why not suggest to Muslims that they attend a church or a synagogue? THEY are, after all, the ones with the problem of murderous intolerance.

    But no, you don’t suggest that. It’s always _we_ who must accomodate others. We must abandon freedom of religion because tolerance offends them. We must abandon freedom of speech because criticism offends them. We must _allow ourselves to be slaughtered_ because our _existence_ offends them.

    Well, screw that, Helen. It’s time Muslims learned some God-damned tolerance. Maybe having their cities and mosques pounded to rubble would get the message across that behaving like a bunch of 7th-century camel bandits is NOT the most effective way to get by in the third millennium. I’m sick of tolerating barbarism.

    You and your kind would be tolerant right up to the moment the blade touches your throat amid cries of “allah akbar!” I’m less tolerant — if people state publicly and repeatedly that they want to kill me, devastate my nation, and destroy my civilization, then I CANNOT TOLERATE THEM ANY MORE.

    So here’s a counter-suggestion, Helen: why don’t YOU attend services at a mosque. In Iran, or northern Pakistan, or anyplace else beyond the reach of Christian guns. And see how many injuries the “tolerance” of the Muslims leaves you with if you dare to expose your face.

  • BigAL

    Trimegistus said:

    “Well, screw that, Helen. It’s time Muslims learned some God-damned tolerance. Maybe having their cities and mosques pounded to rubble would get the message across that behaving like a bunch of 7th-century camel bandits is NOT the most effective way to get by in the third millennium. I’m sick of tolerating barbarism.

    You and your kind would be tolerant right up to the moment the blade touches your throat amid cries of “allah akbar!” I’m less tolerant — if people state publicly and repeatedly that they want to kill me, devastate my nation, and destroy my civilization, then I CANNOT TOLERATE THEM ANY MORE.”

    Trimegistus,

    Who has destroyed whose nation?

    If you can’t tolerate them any more, then why are you telling them they need to learn tolerance?

    You suggesting that they should have their cities and temples burned to the ground is as scary as anything any terrorist has ever said.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ ymarsakar

    The UN has destroyed whole nations at the behest of dictators like Hugo and corrupt officials in Euro land.

    Trim is saying that he will only tolerate the tolerant, rather than tolerating the intolerant.

    Fallujah and Al Sadr cities were great opportunities to be examples to be made. They are still are to a certain extent, but for different reasons.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ ymarsakar

    Oh wait, that would be corrupt officials, don’t mind the geographic reference.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ ymarsakar

    You suggesting that they should have their cities and temples burned to the ground is as scary as anything any terrorist has ever said.

    Comment by BigAL | February 23, 2007

    Fear is a great motivator for human action. It is what civilization is based upon. Fear of the law. If people didn’t fear the law, they wouldn’t obey it. And then civilization would go poof.

  • http://writingenglish.wordpress.com/ judyrose

    Interesting reading, all of this. I am reminded of a DQ post early in January, last time BW was away, that touched on some of these issues. In that chain of comments, I asked Helen and other pacifists to answer a simple question:

    What would you suggest be said to the type of enemy we face these days (Islamic Jihadists) that could possibly convince them to turn away from their stated mission?

    Even though there were 109 comments, there was no answer to this question. The problem with relying on talks and negotiations, is that there has to be something the other side wants that your side is willing to give, and vice versa. In the case of Jihadists, what they want is our destruction. Do you think we should agree to that? Of course, it’s absurd.

    So, if war is never the answer, and talking is the only approach that’s okay with pacifists/liberals, then I ask again: What do you say at the negotiating table that could succeed in getting the Jihadists to live in peace with us?

  • http://ruminationsroom.wordpress.com/ Don Quixote

    Hi Judyrose,

    Excellent question. Is there anything that the jihadists want that Helen and BigAl and others would be willing to give and that the jihadists would be content with, short of our destruction? Can anyone reading this blog answer that question?

  • http://helenl.wordpress.com/ helenl

    Please note (in respnse to #53) that this thread is entitled, “So, what do we do now?” not “So what I think they should do now?”

  • http://helenl.wordpress.com/ helenl

    And never, Trimegistus, as in never, never, never, do I plan to abandon my faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and the obedience to His Word that being a Christian entails because extremists from the middle east fly planes into buildings in New York and Washington or take any other violent and evil action. It’s my country, too, and I have every right (and I think obligation) to try to understand all of our citizens, including peace-loving Muslims, and therefore make my (and your) nation better and stronger. I haven’t joined anyone’s nation except the USA, and I was born here. No one has destroyed my civilization and won’t if I have anything to say about it. I have no intention of leaving my home. I’m not that frustrated. It isn’t me writing in shouting letters nor do I plan to spend my evening arguing. I was pressured to give something we can do, and I did. Finis.

  • BigAL

    Please note (in response to #53) that this thread is entitled, “So, what do we do now?” not “So what I think they should do now?”

    Good point Helen. I posted that in response to DQ because that’s what I would do if I thought we needed to continue attacking the middle-east (which I don’t). If I were a war-mongerer….I would at least get the troops off street-patrols (to help them not get blown up) while keeping a continued large troop presence to guard against Iran cutting off oil supplies or messing with Iraq in a major way. They already mess with Iraq in many small ways even with our presence. Major, in my mind, mind would mean them trying to invade or takeover Iraq or something like that. And we’re already a target, no matter if we’re fortified in a US base keeping our distance or patrolling the streets (i hate to see Americans keep getting blown up during patrols). I would also get the troops better armor, including the new armor which can be fitted on HumV’s which will definitely reduce the number of deaths and injuries due to IED (but for some reason most HumV’s have the same armor they did at the beginning of the war, or no armor at all–and there is no good reason for this). Who is supporting the troops?

    But overall, Helen, it is just asinine that we honestly believe we’re in Iraq and maybe going to Iran because they’re going to kill us all if we don’t. Anyone who hasn’t been fooled knows that we are there because of our continued addiction to the internal combustion engine —which is mainly because the internal combustion engine(ICE)industry and all complementary products of ICE HAVE BEEN MAKING PEOPLE MONEY AND KEEPING PEOPLE IN POWER FOR WAY TOO LONG. Has anyone ever thought, for one minute, that maybe the hate of Jews and Christians by radical Muslims (although centuries long in terms of length) has been increased because of our continued military presence for reasons of OIL?

    What do you say at the negotiating table that could succeed in getting the Jihadists to live in peace with us?

    Say “We don’t need your oil anymore because we are going to develop electric cars on a mass scale over the next several decades. We’ll use our own oil reserves and the reserves of our non-ME allies for the next decade until the transition is complete. Our citizens will make sacrifices and work as team (profit or not) to make sure we never have to be dependent on oil again. We are removing all troops from the middle-east. We are going to arrest the war-profiteers who manipulated our people into believing we could fight a war on terror with conventional methods and weapons. If you are caught trying to commit and act of terror in the USA, we will try you for murder and terrorism, we will give you a fair trial, and we will convict you using evidence….Because that’s what America is all about. We aren’t going to hate you the way you hate us. We are better than that.! If you still want destroy us, we will pray for God to bring peace to your hearts and we will have faith that God will protect us. We are not afraid of you.”

    And the doubters will say that will not work. And that’s OK. They said we could win the war on terror by invading and bombing countries, and that has not worked either…so their credibility is really zero.

    And they’ll call us liberals or pacifists or conservatives or whatever the current popular term is denoting someone WHO DOES NOT AGREE WITH THEM OR BELIEVES THERE’S A BETTER OPTION THAN THE STATUS QUO.

    And they’ll say, “so how are you going to do this and why is this going to work?”

    And I’ll say “that’s funny, because I asked you that exact same question when you said it was a good idea to invade Iraq, and you never gave me a good answer, so screw off”

  • D. Reid

    BigAl I disagree with your statement below:

    “I would also get the troops better armor, including the new armor which can be fitted on HumV’s which will definitely reduce the number of deaths and injuries due to IED (but for some reason most HumV’s have the same armor they did at the beginning of the war, or no armor at all–and there is no good reason for this). Who is supporting the troops?”

    The following is from a soldier in Iraq. His description with pics gives a totally different story.

    “I would first like to point out that this is just one more attempt by the liberals to take an extremely complicated situation, look at one small aspect of the story, and then invent the story that they what to tell. We have over 70,000 M1114 Up-Armored HMMWVs in theatre right now. With that said, it is remarkable that we would be able to retro-fit this number of vehicles with armor in this short of time period while still conducting 24 hour combat operations.
    The short version of the story is that they call this upgrade to the Armor, FRAG5 because it is the fifth such armor upgrade to this one vehicle in just the four years of the war. This number of upgrades does not include the turret upgrades and unit driven upgrades. The number of upgrades per truck sits now at a minimum of eight, with only five being manufactured for the body of the truck. A little quick math and that works out to two per year for just one vehicle type, which we happen to have over 70,000 of.”
    Read the whole thing with pictures: http://michellemalkin.com/archives/2007_02.htm

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ ymarsakar

    Is there anything that the jihadists want that Helen and BigAl and others would be willing to give and that the jihadists would be content with, short of our destruction? Can anyone reading this blog answer that question?

    They do want a nuclear device, so we should probably give them one.

    And booby trap it before.

    Then there is dhimmihude, I am sure they will tolerate believers of the Book or whatever, if you pay a tax and obey Islamic Jihad, publicly that is.

    I would also get the troops better armor, including the new armor which can be fitted on HumV’s which will definitely reduce the number of deaths and injuries due to IED (but for some reason most HumV’s have the same armor they did at the beginning of the war, or no armor at all–and there is no good reason for this). Who is supporting the troops?

    Do you know how heavy that add on armor is, and you know that factory manufactured humvees with that armor can’t be dismantled?

    Humvees won’t get much mileage efficiency with that much weight on it. And what does that mean? It means if you are patrolling, you might run out of fuel during an ambush. Which would be bad, and not only for the environment either.

    Weren’t you talking about oil or something over on another thread? So you want us to burn oil up more, right when it suits your purposes? How does that make you any different from the rest of us then?

    If protection was the priority, people would be always in tanks and APCs. But you know the range on APCs, right.

    http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006917.htm

    Btw, ask yourself this. If people are willing to do that to their own families in the link, what do you think they will do to YOU when the Islamic Jihad comes for your head?

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ ymarsakar

    You people (I’m refering to people who use lack of uparmored humvees to say that Bush/Co doesn’t support troops) aren’t paying attention, because you aren’t attempting to solve the real problems. military bloggers like blackfive posted long ago this armor, and you don’t even mention it. Why? Because you aren’t paying attention to real solutions to real problems.

    http://crunchgear.com/2007/02/06/grizzly-man-in-financial-ruin-selling-halo-suit/

    If all those on the Left spent their energies solving real problems instead of making them, things would be going a lot better for people, and not just the military.

  • http://ruminationsroom.wordpress.com/ Don Quixote

    Hi Helen,

    You make an excellent point and I thank you for your contribution. I actually had in mind asking what we as a nation should do, not what we as individuals should do, but I did not make that clear at all. The fault is all mine. Sorry you felt pressured, but I figured if you had time to come on here and take pot-shots (calling all conservatives warmongers, for example), you might have time to contribute something positive, too.

    I haven’t attended services at a church in 30 years, I’ve never set foot in a synagogue in my life, and I’m not about to visit a mosque, but perhaps you could tell me what the peace-loving Muslims would say, assuming I could find any. Would they tell me how they have attempted to defeat the warmongers in their own ranks? Would they tell me they are ready to join me in the fight for religious and cultural tolerance and love, against 7th century intolerance and hatred? Would they tell me they share my values or the values of the jihadists? What would they tell me about woman’s rights, or freedom of religion, or separation of church and state? Would they listen and believe me if I told them I wished them no ill-will? Would they understand I oppose only those who would destroy my country, my freedom, my way of life? What would such an exchange accomplish? What effect, if any, would a million such exchanges have on the jihadists?

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ ymarsakar

    What effect, if any, would a million such exchanges have on the jihadists?

    It would get those who talked with you, executed. As collaborating with the enemy, as the Palestinians do to anyone that even hints at supporting Israeli efforts.

  • Lulu

    Pacifism in the face of evil is immoral. For many in America it seems it is almost impossible to imagine what it is like to live under true oppression as a rightless victim. War has ended slavery and liberated death camps. In World War II, Swiss and Swedish neutrality (pacifism) was immoral. Their national policy was to be indifferent to Nazi barbarity and genocide. Their pacifism made it national policy to not make moral distinctions between a gestapo state and those who opposed it. War is horrible and many innocent people die and suffer, but sometimes it is necessary. Imagine Helen or BigAl that you were standing behind the barbed wire, absolutely powerless. Would you not be praying for the American, or English or Russian armies to come and liberate you? Come on, you can’t possibly believe that the SS would have a change of heart, sing kumbaya, and skip off hand in hand with skeletal inmates. To Switzerland and Sweden it made no difference as long as they were left alone. That is morally wrong.

    Have you read the ideology of jihadists? Have you seen their pledges, heard their speeches, their announced goals and objectives? If you haven’t, you can’t offer solutions because you don’t understand the danger we face.
    This isn’t about welcoming nice Moslems. Tolerant people are not the problem. This is about understanding, facing and dealing with a murderous, intolerant, bigoted ideology of extremists that promotes suicide bombing, hides bombs in a baby’s bottle, dances in the street when people are murdered, and thinks mass murder is a path to divine enlightenment and heavenly sexual rewards.

    If someone mugged you would you hope that they would have a change of heart, understand their rage and placate- hoping it wouldn’t escalate, blame yourself for belonging to an oppresser group,or would you fight back in self defense? And if you saw evil being done to another, would you be passive, or would you help?

    There is a distinction between murder and killing. There are things worth fighting for. Evil must never be allowed to prevail due to pacifism.

  • highlander

    Well said Lulu. You make a point worth remembering, and you make it with exceptional clarity. Who was it who said, “The only thing necessary for evil to prevail is for good men (and women) to remain silent?”

    Too many of us, perhaps infected by the intellectual viruses listed in D. Reid’s excellent post (#36), have forgotten that there are things worth fighting for.

    War is terrible, but tyranny is far worse.

    It helps to remember that peace is a result, not a goal. Peace, ironically, is the result of being willing to fight when necessary. Whenever peace is made into a goal, tyranny is the result.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ ymarsakar

    Peace is ethically neutral. It shouldn’t be made into something that always good. peace is not always good. There was peace during Saddam’s reign, if only because people who fought died at his command. There would be peace if Stalin and Hitler had won, but it would be the peace of the grave. you would go silently into the night… isn’t that peaceful? The Nazis were not cruel, they wished to exterminate a large group of people in the most efficient manner, they did not practice cruelty in the sense that if they had a choice between a more painful and efficient execution compared to a less painful execution with the same efficiency, they would choose the more painful one. Although there would probably have to be a higher efficiency index for the less pain execution for most Nazis to prefer that over the other. The Germans loved efficiency.

    Peace is not always good. Just like is not always bad.

    But if you go with pacifism, then wouldn’t you have to believe that peace is always good and war is always bad? That kind of duality is perhaps in conflict with what helen said about not all things being of a dualistic nature. All things are not, it is sure, but what does that mean? It means you better be careful in picking out which are dualistic in nature and which aren’t. Helen believes peace is always good, war is always bad. Dual nature. But it isn’t dual.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ ymarsakar

    like war is not always bad

  • http://writingenglish.wordpress.com/ judyrose

    Bravo, Lulu (#67)