Thursday, August 17, 2006

Keep a cool head and get tough.

Tigerhawk has linked to this NY Times article and used it to launch a discussion regarding What Is to Be Done. I sketched out a few operational ideas in my previous post, and I have continued to think about it as the implications of UN Resolution 1701 have begun to sink in and the impossibility of its implementation have become apparent.

The overarching considerations are whether we capitulate, tread water, or fight.

A hardcore of the Kucinich left is likely to either overtly call for capitulation or recommend policies that very clearly lead to enormous losses of strategic capital, if they can be pinned down to making concrete recommendations at all. However, I do think smarter leftist pols in the U.S. are aware that the time to say "just fight competently" is past. Clearly the idea that we should capitulate to dhimmitude is abhorrent to me, so I will leave it to others to make the case.

The middle option of treading water has probably already been deployed: we can specifically refer to it as UN Resolution 1701. Because there are no Freeworld actors capable of pursuing any productive policies under the conditions of UNR 1701, the breathing space afforded to us is very limited, and I hereby speculate that the main impetus behind U.S. support for it cannot be the irrational idea that we thought it represented a true solution to the Hizbollah/Israel dispute. I suspect intelligence obtained from raiding hardened Hizbollah command and control centers forced this precipitous cease-fire. I hesitate to speculate further, but this information was probably Very Bad.

To continue to fight will require realistic bipartisan recognition of the current dire situation. We must soberly face the fact that we may have to temporarily surrender some civil rights, and that this will disproportionately affect muslims. Any such increase in the intrusiveness of Western governments cannot be implemented in a manner that makes it indistinguishable from Sharia law.

The above would serve as a prelude to serious efforts to harden domestic terror targets, as undoubtedly Islamists have pre-positioned assets within the U.S. These efforts would include sealing the borders. Now. In addition, any domestic terror cells currently being monitored should probably be rolled up if possible.

Simultaneously, we have to neutralize the operational capabilities of recognized hostiles without regard to national borders. These include Islamist assets in "Talibanistan", Iran, Syria, and East Africa. Where bodies of conventional armed forces are present, these must be destroyed. Likewise, we should contemplate seizing oil fields in southern Iran while destroying their capacity to place oil on the market. The resulting surge in the price of oil will not do the mullahs any good if they can't sell it.

In looking at the Iraq wars of 1991 and 2003, we see writ large the idea that half-measures in the present lead to much suffering in the future. The ascendancy of Iran after the ouster of the Saddam Hussein regime partially vindicates the George H. W. Bush administration's decision not to remove him at the close of Gulf War I. Even Dick Cheney promoted this decision until it became obvious that Saddam was neither contained nor containable.

Olmert's debacle has now removed any question from my mind about prospects for containing Iran's Twelvers and their Khomeinist agenda. Their perception is that they have received God's Own Mandate to pursue their irhab.


Blogger sirius_sir said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

8/17/2006 03:41:00 PM  
Blogger sirius_sir said...

Five days and counting.

Personally, I think it's a delusional bluff. But I'd hate to stake my life on it.

8/17/2006 03:44:00 PM  
Blogger Screwy Hoolie said...

So your solution is to suspend civil liberties, round up the Muslims, kill everyone who looks like a terrorist abroad, and seize the oil fields of Iran.

The people who think we can kill Terrorism forget that it is a tactic, not a philosophy. The philosophy is anti-western, anti-American. No amount of killing will destroy it. It is rebuilt every day through propagandizing the youth, through radical Muslims capitalizing on our willingness to sacrifice our national values.

There will be some fighting in the future, yes. But to think America can attack the world - pre-emptively of course - and solve the problem of terrorism that way seems like madness to me.

I don't understand your neocon code words, but I think you mean that anything less than all-out killing is a plan for defeat. That is another madness.

8/17/2006 04:15:00 PM  
Blogger K. Pablo said...

Hoolie, I think if you look carefully at the way I use the term "terrorism" you'd see that I don't conflate it with the term I use for Islamist radicals. I agree that terrorism is a tactic and we are not at war with a tactic. We are at war with Islamist radicals, who follow a strain of Salafist/Wahhabi/Qutbist or (if Shiite) Twelver Shiite thought which I have lumped under the term "Mutant Islam". I have seen it referred to as Degenerate Islam elswhere.

I may have been lazy about calling the violent armed thugs who promote this perversion as "terrorists" because I am unwilling to dignify them with the term "soldier".

In an earlier post I have outlined some reasons I think an escalation in the use of force is necessary. Force can indeed defeat philosophy, if the 20th century is any indication. However, the immediate utility of force is to kill delusional bastards under the thrall of destructive philosophies, as they constitute a more immediate threat.

Can I number you, then, among those who advocate capitulation? If not, I await to hear your proposed & detailed solutions.

Sirius, I hope your right about the bluff.

8/17/2006 04:54:00 PM  
Blogger Greg said...

K.Pablo: Olmert had no choice but to fight Hezbollah following the raid and the bombardment of Israeli cities. Mr. Bush, on the other hand, had the responsibility to hold off a ceasefire for as long as possible. Both failed miserably.

As I have stated in answer to your comment on my blog(thank you kindly for your input as it is always valued),America has to look out for its best interests. What it seems to be missing is that its best interests are directly related to Israel's best interests. Both countries are in a do or die fight against global Jihad. We're in almost in the exact same position and the Arabs hate us equally.

8/17/2006 08:09:00 PM  
Blogger philly40 said...

Regarding your argument here. Go plow your own field.

8/22/2006 12:09:00 AM  
Blogger K. Pablo said...


8/22/2006 07:43:00 AM  
Blogger K. Pablo said...


8/22/2006 07:43:00 AM  
Blogger Greg said...

philly40: why shouldn't k. Pablo be entitled to question Olmert's(or Israel's for that matter) actions? Just because he lives in America and is an America doesn't mean he shouldn't have opinions concerning events world-wide.

K.Pablo: I know "lol' but "otl"???

8/29/2006 09:44:00 AM  
Blogger K. Pablo said...

OTL refers to Philly40's other nickname, OldTimeLefty. He was referring to my rather pungent critique of his desire to expand the definition of the word "antisemite".

8/29/2006 12:03:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

. . by clicking on the upper hyperlink below, you'll bring up the graphic that illustrates my proposed concept for a 9/11 memorial , , ,'

. . . oh, yeah, you might think that the "circled A" detail looks familiar . . . well, it is . . . it was lifted from a royalty-free photo of the moon . . .

. . . as for why the moon should figure so significantly in this memorial, well, let me tell you it took me quite a while to get some inkling as to the REAL motivation of the "gollums", who either rammed or attempted to ram those airline jets into civilian targets . . .

. . . anyway, after viewing the graphic, please consider clicking on the hyperlink just underneath the first hyperlink mentioned . . . I believe the text at the other end divulges in precise and concise terms just what the hell was in the back of the mind of those bloodthirsty antiquated poltroons . . .

proposed 9/11 memorial

. . . oh, yeah, you might be put off a bit by the text . . . okay, so it's only fair to mentioned the blog post in question may be unsuited for perusal by people with squeamish disposition . . .

torture works


12/09/2006 06:28:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home