Finding the will in the West to defend itself
I blame the liberals. They have fought back from their stunned silence after 9-11 to reassert their defetism back into the political debate. There is a reason that Pakistan and other governments were willing to cooperate witht he US in taking out their Taliban ally after 9-11. They knew that the US had the will to assert itself in going after those responsible for the attacks on New York and Washington and that the natering nabobs of liberalism were marginalized.Does the United States have the power to eliminate terrorists and the states that support them? In terms of capacity, as opposed to will, the answer is a clear yes.
Think about it. Currently, the U.S. has an arsenal of 18 Ohio class submarines. Just one submarine is loaded with 24 Trident nuclear missiles. Each Trident missile has eight nuclear warheads capable of being independently targeted. That means the U.S. alone has the capacity to wipe out Iran, Syria or any other state that supports terrorist groups or engages in terrorism -- without risking the life of a single soldier.
Terrorist supporters know we have this capacity, but because of worldwide public opinion, which often appears to be on their side, coupled with our weak will, we'll never use it. Today's Americans are vastly different from those of my generation who fought the life-and-death struggle of World War II. Any attempt to annihilate our Middle East enemies would create all sorts of handwringing about the innocent lives lost, so-called collateral damage.
Such an argument would have fallen on deaf ears during World War II when we firebombed cities in Germany and Japan. The loss of lives through saturation bombing far exceeded those lost through the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
After the battle of Midway, and the long string of Japanese defeats in the Pacific, including Guam, Okinawa and the Philippines, had today's Americans been around, they'd be willing to negotiate with Japan for peace, pointing to the additional loss of lives if we continued the war. More than likely they would have made the same argument in 1945, when German defeat was imminent. Of course, had there been a peace agreement with Japan and Germany, all it would have achieved would have been to give them time to recoup their losses and resume their aggression at a later time, possibly equipped with nuclear weapons.
We might also note that the occupation of Germany and Japan didn't pose the occupation problems we face in Iraq. The reason is we completely demoralized our enemies, leaving them with neither the will nor the means to resist.
Our adversaries in the Middle East have advantages that the axis powers didn't have -- the Western press and public opinion. We've seen widespread condemnation of alleged atrocities and prisoner mistreatment by the U.S., but how much media condemnation have you seen of beheadings and other gross atrocities by Islamists?
...
Today the anti war liberals are in full throated calls for retreat and defeat. They make it more difficult to deal with countries like Iran and North Korea because those countries now believe the liberals will be able to restrain the use of force which will in turn make the coming wars with these rogue states more difficult.
Really excellent article by that Williams guy, and no I don't mean me. There is a perception that our enemies are strong, but actually we could crush them many times over with far fewer casualties than we've experienced in previous major wars. By today's standards, they are not as powerful as Imperial Japan, or Fascist Germany, or the Soviet Union. He is right to point out that it is not obvious that nukes are the answer, but it is very important to know and to make known that we can and will use them if we decide to (if only it were true). The Islamic totalitarians must really be baffled why we don't defeat them after killing US soldiers and civilians again and again -- if they are living in a fantasy world, it is certainly not helping that we are feeding their fantasy of power and efficacy.
ReplyDeleteAyn Rand said that evil is impotent, it has to borrow its power from the good. This is true on every level: from the fact that these guys use *our* planes to kill our civilians, *our* weapons on the battlefield, the oil that *the West* discovered and developed (then first nationalized by Iran in the 1950's, if I recall correctly) to fund their jihad, and our own conflicted ethics of self-doubt. This last is the most important, of course. The "PR battlespace" is not a fundamental, it is a manifestation and reflection of the fundamental battle over morality our culture is waging -- with itself.