Crushing Insurgencies

Crushing Insurgencies

Wednesday, December 06, 2006

President Bush’s goals for Iraq and Afghanistan were noble and the product of a true statesman—to liberate Iraq from the treacherous clutches of the mass-murderer Saddam Hussein, and to free Afghanistan from the terrorist control of the Taliban and its al Qai’da military wing. To those ends Bush dedicated the US military and American resources to accomplish them. As the War on Terrorism progressed however, President Bush and the Bush Administration saw the American effort in the War on Terrorism become a war upon America.

The Iraq Study Group is the first “bipartisan” response to the global war against America. Since the first shot was fired in Iraq to free the Iraqis from Saddam Hussein, war was declared upon the United States. The Iraqi Study Group is now trying to figure out a way to stop the war against America. Those hostile to the Bush Administration’s efforts to bring freedom and liberty to Iraq and Afghanistan believe that the Iraq Study Group was created to figure out a way to prevent the further implementation of freedom and democracy in the Middle East. Those at war with America view the Iraq Study Group as a mechanism to help the Bush Administration make the most efficient exit out of Iraq and Afghanistan as quickly as possible so that there is a resounding defeat of America and the US Armed Forces. In reality, the Iraq Study Group is a response by the nation-state to the dangerous security situation that Europe, the leftist international media and leftist political and special interest groups have created for the Bush Administration and the United States itself.

We know that Europe’s avoidance of responsibility in the War on Terrorism is directly connected to the funding of their socialist economies. Should Europe get militarily involved against Arab and non-Arab oil producing countries, those OPEC countries could make Europe pay a high price for such involvement. Europe then has abandoned its traditional values in exchange for unrestricted access to oil because they have margined their economies on vast socialist programs. These countries are, in effect, impotent in dealing with transnational terrorism due to these facts.

Before the War on Terrorism even began, some European countries and others were attempting to influence the US presidential elections. None of those countries wanted to see President Bush elected as president. The reason these countries didn’t want President Bush elected was that they were concerned that he would clean up the rampant corruption in the United Nations. In the history of the UN, there has never been so much corruption, so much misery and genocide in the world, and never has there been such a disjointed international global policy on these important matters. If President Bush were elected, he would seek changes at the UN to correct these deficiencies. When President Bush was in fact elected by the American people, a fast-track policy to fix the UN was planned, but then al Qai’da attacked the United States on September 11, 2001, and that changed everything.

Under the legitimacy of the sovereign state system, the sovereign state has the full legal right to wage war against any other sovereign state or non-state actor should hostile forces attack the sovereign state and kill its citizens. That is the legal basis for US intervention in the War on Terrorism and the United States had the right to do so. Unfortunately for the United States, some nation-states who claim that they are a part of western civilization and share the same foundations of law and governance as the US does do not share that view of history. These states believe that war should not have been declared against terrorism and the United States should have just accepted the damage on September 11, 2001, and did nothing about it. The killing of thousands of citizens in the modern “global community” by terrorists does not warrant or justify using military force against terrorists and their nation-state sponsors. The new political class that inhabits the United Nations’ entrenched and endless bureaucracy does not agree that the United States was really harmed on September 11, 2001, and when America decided to declare war against transnational terrorism, the US could expect no support from these states because they did not see a crime committed against the United States and the American people that warranted a military response.

True to their word, the transnational terrorists, the nation-states that sponsored them, appeasement elements in the United Nations, non-government organizations and other special interest groups, and of course the leftist international media, got together and decided that President Bush’s War on Terrorism would fail the instant that he initiated it. Those hostile to the idea that the United States had no right to defend itself after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks declared war upon the United States instead. How this war against the US has played out has varying levels of intensity. For example, the leftist international media would provide a psyop conduit for terrorist attacks upon US soldiers by providing television time to the terrorists to play their attack videos to the American people. Instead of media investigating terrorist organizations and the nation-states that sponsor them to help the Bush Administration in the War on Terrorism, media channeled its efforts in publishing classified information to hurt the US war effort and media even outrageously demanded access to incoming US military flights in Dover, Delaware, so that they could film US service personnel arriving in coffins that were killed in action in the War on Terrorism so that footage could also be played to the American people.

President Bush and his administration never had a chance against the sheer number of anti-American enemies that emerged when Bush sought to defend the United States from transnational terrorism. It became a war against the United States itself.

Inside the United States, the war against the Bush Administration and America itself was playing out just as efficiently as the international war against America was playing itself out. Crazed groups filled with conspiracy theorists appeared that claimed that the United States had planned and carried out the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks against the American people, and not al Qai’da under the command of Usama Bin Ladin. The media relentlessly attacked the war effort by claiming that no weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq, even though WMD has been found in Iraq. Leftist organizations latched onto that and propagated against America daily as well, even as our soldiers were being attacked in the war zones that they volunteered to proudly risk their lives to serve in so as to free the Iraqi people from a terrible dictatorship. Leftist universities and their functionaries claimed that US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan were the most “murderous” ever witnessed in American history and others said US military forces deserved a million “Mogadishus”.

This is clearly a war against America since the United States did not choose the appeasement model. The appeasement model has but one outcome—hand over the State of Israel, a democracy, to fundamentalist Islam and then peace can be expected. That logic is almost as laughable as handing over the Rheinland to Hitler without firing a shot to stop Hitler from taking it.

So James Baker and his Iraq Study Group are not looking for a way out of Iraq and Afghanistan. That is the least of America’s worries. They are looking for a way out of the global war against America.

President Bush does have options. He can agree to join the appeasement model and hand over the State of Israel to the enemies of the Jews and that will buy the United States and the west some time before Iran begins operating against the west from underneath a Persian nuclear umbrella. The west may find a decade or so of peace if they decide to hand the State of Israel over to fundamentalist Islam. The appeasement model that is being advocated by the enemies of America, even enemies within this country, will allow fundamentalist Islam to march across the world without restriction and those forces will subject millions of people to forced religious conversion, death, famine, disease and war. It isn’t particularly problematic for the new political class to ignore those problems because they were very proficient at ignoring the genocide in Rwanda and Sudan. The appeasement model then does not view fundamentalist Islamic aggression as something that needs to be confronted by western civilization, so perhaps through appeasement there can be peace. After all, western civilization has been bombarded with psyop that tries to tell us that Islam’s furious military adventures are only the result of the creation of the Jewish state. If the Jewish state is removed, peace will result, according to the appeasement model. Millions of Rwandans and Sudanese have died or are dying in genocide and the world did nothing about it—why would the destruction of one democracy in the Middle East bring unnatural criticism if it meant that Islam would become civilized in return?

President Bush, for obvious reasons, will not accept the appeasement model because the appeasement model is fallacy. However, very large constituencies in western nation-states have become developed where they want the appeasement model deployed in the Middle East. These folks have been committing political violence against Christian sects for decades across the world. For example, when museums show carved symbols of Christ on the Cross floating in urine and then provide that exhibit to the public, that is political violence. When mangers during the Christmas season are staffed with the figurines of Lenin, Stalin, Marx and other revolutionary anti-Christian atheists and then those same mangers are placed in public places, that again is political violence. The west has declared war against religion in a secular way for decades, but the Christian sects have yet to develop military wings to confront that political violence.

Islam has already developed vast and efficient military wings to deal with political violence against Islam. You won’t catch anyone in the secular left in the west building mangers with figures mocking Allah. The secular left knows that even if they draw a cartoon mocking Allah that cities, embassies and other critical infrastructure will burn and someone, perhaps many people, will be beheaded for it. Secular attacks and political violence against Christians then is done on the cheap because Christianity does not go after its critics—at least not yet.

The appeasement model then is also the full supporting of the secular model of governance and all the intolerances that go along with it. Allowing the slaughter of one religious class (the Jews) to the benefit of another religious class the west fears (Islam), is a secular model of appeasement. This situation is favorable to the new political class because Islam has proven it can go after the new political class, unlike secular intolerance of Christianity, for example.

President Bush’s next possible option is to keep his chin up and take a different route in defending the United States and the free world from the evil of fundamentalist Islamic totalitarianism. This can be accomplished successfully provided that specific objectives and plans are set into motion. The vast appeasement model crowd will be hostile to it and continue their international war against America, but they are going to act on that agenda anyway whether the United States withdraws from Iraq and Afghanistan or not.

Success can be found in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that will be the topic of “Crushing Insurgencies: Part II”, tomorrow.

Christopher Farmer

MS, National Security

To comment about this article, please use our forum!