Townhall:

The Key To A Lasting Middle East Peace Is Total Victory

Here’s a wacky idea. Let’s win the war against our jihadi enemies.
Yeah, it’s certainly an outside the box idea. All we hear right now – in fact, all we’ve heard for decades – is about peace processes and negotiations and ceasefires. On and on they go, one after another, always crashing on the rocks of intransigence by people who hate our allies and who hate us. Maybe we need some fresh new ideas, some outside-the-box thinking.
How about we and our allies destroy our enemies? After all, the best peace plan is victory.
Wait, hear me out. You know, it wasn’t that long ago that we Americans and our allies won wars. Sure, it’s unfashionable to talk about winning today, but we have much to learn from history. And history teaches that if you pummel your enemies into submission, they tend to submit and stop trying to murder you and your kids.
I’m not necessarily talking about emulating the original Middle East peacemakers, the Romans, who got tired of Carthage’s attitude and leveled the city, killed the men, sold the women and children into bondage and sowed the fields with salt. But then, on the other hand, we haven’t had a lot of problems with the Carthaginians in the last couple millennia.
Let’s look closer to our own time. Ulysses S. Grant famously refused to accept anything except unconditional surrender, and set about grinding his Confederate opponents into dust. General Grant was quite popular around the old Schlichter family place, the rebels having burned down the town of Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, where my family lived.Note that Chambersburg hasn’t been burned down since.
Also note that Grant and his Unions troops faced brave, determined and skilled warriors in the Confederates. Today, we and our allies typically face untrained, gutless losers who cower behind women and children when they aren’t trying to talk them into blowing themselves to bits inside a school bus.
Even Democrats used to embrace the idea of victory. As hard as that is to believe, it was Democrat Harry Truman who decided that, given the choice of either a whole bunch of the enemy dying or a whole bunch of the enemy dying plus a whole bunch of Americans and allies also dying, since the enemy started it they could do the dying alone. He nuked Hiroshima, and when the Japanese didn’t give up, he nuked Nagasaki. And the Japanese gave up.And they haven’t been a problem since.
When our enemies decide to embark on a war, someone’s going to die. I vote that it be them instead of us. Sadly, many of our political leaders and media mavens don’t see it that way. They whine because so few Israelis have died in comparison to Hamas. They seem to think we have some sort of moral obligation to suffer casualties. Perhaps they’d feel differently if they had even been around any.
My great-great grandfather was in the Union Army. I expect he was quite pleased that he didn’t have to go for round two with the rebels. Both of my grandfathers were in the Pacific getting ready to help invade Japan when Harry tossed the hot rocks. There’s a fair chance at least one of yours was too.I’m glad they didn’t have to hit those beaches – an invasion of Japan would have been an unspeakable bloodbath, both for the military and civilians of Japan and, more importantly, for the warriors of the United States and our allies.
Yeah, I place a higher value on the lives of our troops and those of our courageous allies than upon those of our enemies. Call me crazy.
One should ask presumptive President Hillary Clinton about that.A tape from September 10, 2011, just came out with Bill Clinton talking in Australia about how he could have killed Osama bin Laden in the 1990s, but held back because it might cause perhaps 300 civilian casualties. Of course, the next day bin Laden killed 3000 Americans. Was that the right choice, Ms. Clinton?What would you do? Do you think Bill made the right choice in not taking out bin Laden because he bravely surrounded himself with 300 civilians even though it cost us 3000 Americans?
That’s a really good question. And that’s why no one in the mainstream media will ever ask it. Okay, Jake Tapper might, but that’s why he’ll never get within 10 miles of Her Majesty.
War is an ugly and terrible thing. That’s why you should avoid it. But the only thing worse than getting sucked into a war is not winning one. We went into Korea, stopped short of victory, and we’re still there dealing with that freak show dynasty. We refused to achieve victory in Vietnam, and millions died throughout Southeast Asia when the communists proceeded to do what communists always do. We have refused to do what was needed to achieve victory in Afghanistan and that garden spot is already reverting to the Stone Age.
We had victory in Iraq, but squandered it. All that blood spilled for nothing – pathetic. Now the jihadis are sweeping in and conducting a real #waronwomen. Even the most dedicated single payer health care advocate has to recoil from ISIS’s mandatory cliterodectomy program.
Our leaders insist Israel show “restraint” and urge a truce. Except everyone knows that the only chance for peace in the long term is the utter destruction of Hamas. You can’t negotiate peace where the other side’s bottom line bargaining position is that you die.
We need to unequivocally and unreservedly support our allies in their war against our shared enemies.As I discuss in my new book, Conservative Insurgency, a speculative future history of the struggle to restore our system and culture, we need to rebuild our shrunken military and aggressively confront and destroy threats to our nation. We can’t wish away the fact that our enemies want us dead. What we can do is make it clear that if they choose to make war upon us, over or covert, they are the ones who will get to do the dying.