ONLY WAY TO BEAT TERORISTS

U.S. Military Not a Realistic Answer because they can't win. The most brilliant military theorist of the last couple of centuries was a guy named Carl von Clausewitz. He laid out everything in a single boring book called Vom Kriege and everybody read him and agreed with him. Wars were “an act of violence carried to its utmost bounds,” which meant both sides try to kill everything that moves. His theory of war was fairly simple: the side with the most guys wins if both sides have equal technology. During WWII Eisenhower rejected the Patton demand to be let loose behind the German lines during the Battle of the Bulge and opted instead to confront the Nazis with massive force. Ike was a Clausewitzian and from his military education knew that a smaller force like Patton’s Third Army would probably lose to a larger German Army that had the superior technology of the massive Tiger Tanks [the clouds prevented air warfare]. In the end the savagery of both World Wars made everyone see that “violence carried to its utmost bounds” meant atomic warfare on a grand scale. Another way of saying, “fuck Clausewitz, we gotta find a patron saint.”

OK, so Clausewitz was dead but no othrer theory replaced him so we had a cold war with two huge armies with equal technology staring at each other for half a century.

What the hell is going on, now? First, Clausewitz said that wars are fought by states and that the states use unrestrained force. He further said that war was “the language of politics, a language that spoke in bullets and force rather than words or gestures.” His main tenant was that wars were only fought for political purposes; “an instrument of policy.” This did not mean that a political party or politician ran a war. What he meant, and what he stated later in his famous book, was that war was simply an instrument of the State, insofar as the State employs violence for political ends—which means territory or other riches. Both Clausewitz and the famous Chinese military writer, Sun Tsu listed the “favor of heaven” or luck as the most important factor in winning a war.

We are now in a different world and must think in a much different way, but the Left doesn't see that. The “modern” Left is frozen into Clausewitzian rules and theory of war that revolve around policy or interest. This means that the Left cannot envision a war that doesn’t include Iraqi oil, profits for corporate interests, or a political control of a state in order to enrich business. I’ve got news for you: the rules of Clausewitz formally ended in 1945 with the conclusion of World War II in which alliances, grievances, and colonial territories were at stake for both sides. The fact that the war was a matter of survival for Western Civilization was not lost on most people.

Today we see the college educated Left get most of their ideas from English, Drama, and Ethnic Studies professors who spout little epigrams of war al-la Mr. Clausewitz, a man they never bothered to study. Many professors throw in passages from “The Prince” by Machiavelli to prove that leaders lie and are deceitful so their students will “learn.” What they are learning are things that are at least fifty years out of date. And are wrong.

What both Machiavelli and Clausewitz missed were wars of survival. When a society sees itself threatened with extinction all the rules are off. That is why the Algerians put up with close to a million dead to run the French off their land. Israel was willing to risk destruction by the numerically superior Arabs in the 1967 war and lashed out to survive. Ditto the Vietnamese when they became convinced that their survival was at stake.

A classical Army that is structured in the old way cannot possibly win a war when their purpose is territory, or replacing a government, or some other esoteric reason when confronted by a civilization convinced their survival is at stake. There are very few times in world history that a society faced with extinction didn’t exact a dreadful toll on their foes even when they lost.

What the Left doesn’t want to face, and what Europe won’t face, is that we are in a battle for survival against radical Islam. The purpose of Islam is to make everybody else a Muslim and if you don’t agree to convert they are entitled to kill you; in fact they will go to Heaven if they do kill you. There is a totally boring book which has become a new Bible of Warfare of sorts that has been read and re-read by every officer and sergeant in the military. It’s called The Transformation of War by a guy named Martin van Cleveld. In it he describes past wars and what they were fought for; religion, territory, women, (my favorite part), etc. etc. etc. What we are looking at right now is a war being fought by Islam that is 350 years out of date. The last religious war ended in 1648 [the Thirty Years War] and from then on we had wars of power calculations by countries. This stuff ended in 1947 with the formation of the UN which banned wars for territory. This meant that nobody would recognize new borders.

The college educated (mis-educated) young have been taught doctrine that is both Communist—business or multi-national corporations steal from Third World countries and make slaves out of their workers---- together with old world self interest. This is mixed with a notion gleaned from the imagined interpretations of both Machiavelli and Clausewitz, that declare war is an extension of politics—interpreted to mean that greedy politicians hook up with big business so they can take over the assets of another country. Neither Machiavelli nor Clausewitz said it but plenty of college profs say that they did. The last war for territory, or near war, was the attempt of the Brits and French to keep the Suez Canal.

I defy you to write a paper that proves wars are just an extension of politics. War has been an extension of policy.

Cutting to the Chase

What we have hoped to do in Iraq is to present the Iraqi people with the scenario that their entire survival depends on becoming a democracy, to make it their war for survival against a band of terrorists; not insurgents, not Holy warriors, not Islam, but terrorists. People with no agenda other than raw power. When survival happens all the “rules” change. The terrorists are able to convince a decreasing number of people that they are in a fight for survival; that killing themselves in order for their religion to triumph is a guarantee of an eternity in Heaven. If we are to believe many of the Iraqi bloggers, the Iraqis are turning terrorists over to both their own security forces and to coalition forces because they see the stakes and believe they can win.

The American Left, or at least many of their leaders [Hillary, some at Newsweek and the Washington Post] are beginning to understand the stakes. We cannot afford to lose. Listen to the new debating tactics from the Left over the next weeks. A lot of this was articulated on Meet the Press last Sunday. What we will hear includes:
1. We went to war for the right reasons and we should have been told we are in it for survival
2. The war itself was conducted brilliantly but the peace part was bungled by an Administration that failed.
3. We need to rally together and win this “thing.”
4. We absolutely cannot afford to lose.
5. Our purpose is now clear to all: we are in this to split the Islamic states apart and to create the soil for change in other countries. Enough democracies and terrorism won’t happen. It is interesting to note that Maureen Dowd did NOT go along, she is a Clausewitzian ridden with guilt over her percieved idea of our purposes.

Meanwhile the Leftist professoriat will tell their charges about the evils of Machiavelli, never mentioning his final sentence to the Italian citizenry

Let your illustrious House therefore take upon itself this enterprise with all the courage and all the hopes with which a just cause is undertaken; that under your standard this, your country may be enolbled, and under your standard, this our country may be enobled; and under your auspices be fulfilled the words of Petarach:

Brief will be the strife
When valour arms against barbaric rage;
For the bold spirit of the bygone age
Still warms Italian hearts with life.

Not much deceit there. Oh well, the university elites are not constrained by truth.

But what is the truth? Consider this: look at any map of the world and what do you see? A bunch of lines that were arbitrarily drawn by somebody some place that said “this is Bumfuckistan, this is Pukesalvania and so on” and everybody in the world agreed to it. Why is China China? England makes sense but France? Romania? Countries are a relatively new invention. Before countries there were mainly gangs, city states, mobs of robber barons, shit like that. What is Iraq right now? Gangs, criminals, a couple of armies and a bunch of fake borders drawn by the Brits and Frogs who were carving up the world. How can any regular army handle things? Unless somebody is willing to blow away an entire population. Somebody like You Know Who.
This guy van Cleveld doesn’t have a clue on how to fight these small terrorist wars with conventional forces. Can any country survive a protracted terrorist type of war where the HQ is a garbage dump, their bomb making equipment is a second floor apartment, and the army is ten guys? Ten guys times several thousand "ten guys" all willing to die for Allah? The only solution, one of which we are partially using in Iraq, is a very old one: a mercenary enforcement. Private armies that will be motivated by money, pussy, and loot. Just the way it used to be before we had countries. Guys who will decapitate enemies and hang them in the public square for everyone to see. A government hired Mafia. That’s the way it used to be and Van Cleveld says it’s the only way we will survive this return to the past. It’s what worked before. Queen Elizabeth hired Sir Francis Drake and a bunch of other pirates and let them run wild in order to win an unconventional war. The Conquistadors were mercenaries. Wars used to be mercenaries vs mercenaries and sometimes they were bought off for higher wages right in the middle of a war. The Brits used Hessian mercenaries against us in 1776.

I know, somehow it’s just not the way it’s done. Scary shit having nothing to do with Clausewitz or Sun Tsu or anybody else who wrote about war in the olden days. This is today.

Deal with it.