We are winning the war
I think it instructive to present examples occasionally of people who have utterly departed from reality and choose to share their fantasies with us on the Internet. Poor Bob is just such a fellow. I really think he needs to seek professional help.
Ok, Bob, I'm sure you're going to fill us in on that. Buckle your seat belts, folks. It promises to be a wild ride.
Yep, here it comes. One of the more interesting facets of the current war is the ever-changing purpose of it. Let's see what new and entertaining purpose Bob has found for us.
Great, Bob. Re-define the purpose and declare victory. One wonders at the target audience of this. Since Bob is a long time supporter of all the different purposes we have been given for the war, it is curious that he has come full circle to the self defense argument. Of course, we were given a fairly weak self-defense argument as the original purpose for this war. Weak, because there was no credible threat to the sovereign United States itself and additionally because the Administration chose to (and continues to) ignore the more immediate and credible threat to us from North Korea.
Of course, we know that Bob is immediately going to tell us that we have been successful because no one has attacked us since 9/11. He will conveniently ignore the fact that no one attacked us before 9/11 either, but let's see where he's going with this.
As surmised, Bob is headed most surely down the path of arguing that the lack of attacks on us since 9/11 means we're completely safe and winning the war, all 12 million illegals currently within our borders notwithstanding.
What Bob says is absolutely true, but like all generalizations, it is also absolutely incorrect. Bob is attempting to anthropomorphize this fluid entity he calls "Militant Islam." That's because he knows that fighting an idea or a tactic is a worthless strategic goal. In order to stir his readers up, he needs a more or less human bogeyman for us to hate. The elements of truth are that Militant Islam, such as it can be generalized, is interested in the goals he states. However, it was an organization headed by a crazy Saudi with more money than sanity that attacked us on 9/11. While that organization claims to speak for the cause of Militant Islam, it obviously is not all of Militant Islam. In short, Bob has resorted to cheap propaganda trickery to further his point. One suspects this won't be the last instances of this in the article.
As well, this all begs the question of what the war in Iraq has to do with any of this.
No kidding, Bob? I don't know about you, Bob, but that objective has been pretty clear since the 1970s when radical Muslims started hijacking planes and slaughtering innocents.
But once again, what does any of this have to do with the war in Iraq?
No it isn't, Bob. You can't fight a war on a tactic or some amorphous entity. This is precisely the reason why this "war" is such a miserable failure. It's exactly the same mistake as making war on poverty or drugs. You make war on nations and armies, Bob. You don't make war on isolated guerrilla crazies with access to money and guns. You don't make war on a belief system. You absolutely don't make war on a tactic. Terrorism is a tactic. You counter a tactic. You create strategies to meet tactics. You author counter-tactics, but you absolutely do not declare war on a tactic. It is a fool's errand, especially in the case of terrorism. Terrorism is actually a collection of extremely mutable tactics. Armies and tanks and ships and all the conventional strategies that make up a "war on" something are utterly worthless against terrorism.
But maybe you'll explain to us, Bob, which part of this grand war addresses the fact that our borders are porous as sponges while our soldiers fight and die in the sand half way around the war. Isn't that kind of like running around the most crime-ridden parts of the city, brandishing a gun while you have left the doors and windows of your house unlocked?
Oh horse manure, Bob. First, maybe you could illuminate for us how invading and occupying Iraq or Afghanistan has made anything impossible. Second, regardless of the fact that we have given up a substantial number of liberties to make the growing police state Bob calls "domestic law-enforcement action" possible, individual incidents of Muslim crazies operating "tactically" here in the US don't seem to have been curtailed in the least. And that's the whole point, isn't it, Bob? You war is the wrong tactic. It can't possibly address activities like the nutjobs in Chapel Hill or Seattle.
And the whole "we have duped him into fighting" thing is hilarious, Bob. But if you want to take credit for a side effect, be my guest.
Right, Bob, or could it be that we removed the only entity with the capability to hit us in the first action in Afghanistan? Could it be that, as I said at the outset, the enemy was a crazy Saudi rich kid and his shadowy Saudi backers, and we have taken him and whatever organization he had out?
We're still missing any connection between this epic struggle and the invasion and occupation of Iraq, Bob. Initially, we were told that we needed to go into Iraq to take out Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. We weren't actually sure they were there, and no one seemed to be able to indicate how his possession of such constituted any real threat to us. Then, when it became apparent that the WMD excuse was vapor, we were assured that Saddam was a really bad guy and we were on high moral ground in removing him. We were assured that the Iraqis would adore us and hold parades in our honor once we took the evil old fart out. After we captured Saddam and we seemed no closer to leaving, we were told that this was an action to spread truth, democracy, and the American way into Iraq. So now that it has become finally apparent to everyone that the Iraqis aren't as thrilled with these attributes as we are, I guess we're back to the whole self defense mantra. Trouble is, Bob hasn't done anything but some cheerleading, so we don't really have any better idea why fighting in Iraq has any bearing on our self defense or exactly what the credible threat to us might be.
We are winning the war.
In fact, it is a rout. We have been victorious every day we have fought.
Ok, Bob, I'm sure you're going to fill us in on that. Buckle your seat belts, folks. It promises to be a wild ride.
It's unfortunate that we don't see that. Tragic that we cannot recognize our good fortune and success. Astounding that we misperceive this war and its purpose and progress.
Yep, here it comes. One of the more interesting facets of the current war is the ever-changing purpose of it. Let's see what new and entertaining purpose Bob has found for us.
We are engaged in a war of national self-defense and, as it stands now, we have been completely successful.
Great, Bob. Re-define the purpose and declare victory. One wonders at the target audience of this. Since Bob is a long time supporter of all the different purposes we have been given for the war, it is curious that he has come full circle to the self defense argument. Of course, we were given a fairly weak self-defense argument as the original purpose for this war. Weak, because there was no credible threat to the sovereign United States itself and additionally because the Administration chose to (and continues to) ignore the more immediate and credible threat to us from North Korea.
Of course, we know that Bob is immediately going to tell us that we have been successful because no one has attacked us since 9/11. He will conveniently ignore the fact that no one attacked us before 9/11 either, but let's see where he's going with this.
The war began, to our understanding, on September 11, 2001. Our enemy had commenced hostilities before then, but prior to that point we were not aware of or engaged in the war.
As surmised, Bob is headed most surely down the path of arguing that the lack of attacks on us since 9/11 means we're completely safe and winning the war, all 12 million illegals currently within our borders notwithstanding.
Militant Islam, a loosely coalesced religious movement bent on world domination and the destruction of free societies and Judeo-Christian cultures, committed a horrific act of war against the American people in the American homeland.
What Bob says is absolutely true, but like all generalizations, it is also absolutely incorrect. Bob is attempting to anthropomorphize this fluid entity he calls "Militant Islam." That's because he knows that fighting an idea or a tactic is a worthless strategic goal. In order to stir his readers up, he needs a more or less human bogeyman for us to hate. The elements of truth are that Militant Islam, such as it can be generalized, is interested in the goals he states. However, it was an organization headed by a crazy Saudi with more money than sanity that attacked us on 9/11. While that organization claims to speak for the cause of Militant Islam, it obviously is not all of Militant Islam. In short, Bob has resorted to cheap propaganda trickery to further his point. One suspects this won't be the last instances of this in the article.
As well, this all begs the question of what the war in Iraq has to do with any of this.
At that point, the intent of our enemy and the focus of our defense became perfectly clear. The objective of the enemy was to kill Americans in America. The objective of our defense was to prevent that from happening, to defend the American homeland at all costs.
No kidding, Bob? I don't know about you, Bob, but that objective has been pretty clear since the 1970s when radical Muslims started hijacking planes and slaughtering innocents.
But once again, what does any of this have to do with the war in Iraq?
Be clear about that. The “war on terror” -- which is really a fight with the hydra-headed expansionist Islam – is first, last and always a war to defend the American homeland. The enemy made its intentions clear by killing Americans in America. The only purpose of the war is to protect the United States.
No it isn't, Bob. You can't fight a war on a tactic or some amorphous entity. This is precisely the reason why this "war" is such a miserable failure. It's exactly the same mistake as making war on poverty or drugs. You make war on nations and armies, Bob. You don't make war on isolated guerrilla crazies with access to money and guns. You don't make war on a belief system. You absolutely don't make war on a tactic. Terrorism is a tactic. You counter a tactic. You create strategies to meet tactics. You author counter-tactics, but you absolutely do not declare war on a tactic. It is a fool's errand, especially in the case of terrorism. Terrorism is actually a collection of extremely mutable tactics. Armies and tanks and ships and all the conventional strategies that make up a "war on" something are utterly worthless against terrorism.
But maybe you'll explain to us, Bob, which part of this grand war addresses the fact that our borders are porous as sponges while our soldiers fight and die in the sand half way around the war. Isn't that kind of like running around the most crime-ridden parts of the city, brandishing a gun while you have left the doors and windows of your house unlocked?
Our military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq have combined with domestic law-enforcement actions to make it impossible for our enemy to operate tactically in our homeland. Instead, we have induced the enemy into meeting us on the battleground of the Middle East. Whereas the enemy wanted to fight unarmed civilians in America, we have duped him into fighting our armed military in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Oh horse manure, Bob. First, maybe you could illuminate for us how invading and occupying Iraq or Afghanistan has made anything impossible. Second, regardless of the fact that we have given up a substantial number of liberties to make the growing police state Bob calls "domestic law-enforcement action" possible, individual incidents of Muslim crazies operating "tactically" here in the US don't seem to have been curtailed in the least. And that's the whole point, isn't it, Bob? You war is the wrong tactic. It can't possibly address activities like the nutjobs in Chapel Hill or Seattle.
And the whole "we have duped him into fighting" thing is hilarious, Bob. But if you want to take credit for a side effect, be my guest.
If our enemy had the capability to strike us again on our territory, he would have. But he doesn't have it because we have taken it away from him. We have thus far maintained the initiative and the upper hand.
Right, Bob, or could it be that we removed the only entity with the capability to hit us in the first action in Afghanistan? Could it be that, as I said at the outset, the enemy was a crazy Saudi rich kid and his shadowy Saudi backers, and we have taken him and whatever organization he had out?
We're still missing any connection between this epic struggle and the invasion and occupation of Iraq, Bob. Initially, we were told that we needed to go into Iraq to take out Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. We weren't actually sure they were there, and no one seemed to be able to indicate how his possession of such constituted any real threat to us. Then, when it became apparent that the WMD excuse was vapor, we were assured that Saddam was a really bad guy and we were on high moral ground in removing him. We were assured that the Iraqis would adore us and hold parades in our honor once we took the evil old fart out. After we captured Saddam and we seemed no closer to leaving, we were told that this was an action to spread truth, democracy, and the American way into Iraq. So now that it has become finally apparent to everyone that the Iraqis aren't as thrilled with these attributes as we are, I guess we're back to the whole self defense mantra. Trouble is, Bob hasn't done anything but some cheerleading, so we don't really have any better idea why fighting in Iraq has any bearing on our self defense or exactly what the credible threat to us might be.
posted by Anonymous | 1:45 PM
1 Comments:
This has to be the longest post ever in the history of the BP. Good job of keeping it pithy, Steve... Ha! :-)
Post a Comment
<< Home