Go Ahead...Make My Day

The United States is like Harry Callahan. Iran is like a punk. The punk thinks he can reach for his gun and Dirty Harry will hesitate long enough for him to use it. In the movies, the punk soon begins an expedited process of assuming room temperature. What will happen in reality?

Iran is reaching with its latest escapade of kidnapping 15 British soldiers. Iran wishes to embarrass the British and the Americans with this show of force. It also believes this will lead to a greater standing for itself in the Arab world and a quicker withdrawal of coalition forces from not only Iraq, but the entire Middle East.

Iran is unlike any enemy we have faced since Nazi Germany. Iran doesn’t care about the opinion of the international community. Iran doesn’t care about the lives of its own citizens. Iran doesn’t care about negotiations or compromises. Iran is on a mission from “god”. Iran wants to establish the worldwide caliphate; a society of all people ruled under Islamic law. This goal may be ridiculously ambitious, but Iran seeks it nonetheless.

Iran has 2 strategic objectives for furthering its cause: Drive America and its allies out of the Middle East and destroy Israel. Everything Iran has done since the Islamic Revolution in 1979 has been toward furthering these objectives. Iran is the worlds’ leading sponsor of terrorism, and until September 11th, killed more Americans than any other terrorist group. It created Hezbollah, that not only killed over 200 U.S. Marines and drove the Americans out of Lebanon, but continues to operate with the objective of fighting Israel whenever it is in Iran’s’ best interest to do so.

Iran is one of the few countries in the world today that regards taking hostages as an official form of diplomacy. It started with the takeover of the U.S. embassy in 1979 and continues to this day. Taking hostages is as natural to Iran as eating pasta is to Tommy Lasorda. The Iranian regime will continue to disregard international pressure and the Geneva Conventions because it does not recognize anything that stands in the way of its ultimate goal. Even Tommy Lasorda would cut the spaghetti a little bit if the United Nations issued a sternly-worded memo.

The position the British are faced with is dire. The hostages have already been forced to make “confessions”, which is a blatant violation of the Geneva Conventions. The poor soldiers are probably already dead. Maybe not as I write this, but their chances of returning home are slim, as they would be able to tell their story of captivity once freed from their captors.

The British are pursuing the diplomatic route, which is prudent, but will be unsuccessful against a barbaric enemy. The best the British can hope for, if they want to recover the 15 soldiers alive, is an utter humiliation at the hands of the Iranians. Iran will make demands that must be met before the return of the soldiers. If the Brits acquiesce, Iran will have won its propaganda war. I can only hope that Tony Blair will borrow at least one of Margaret Thatcher’s balls.

The response from the Americans has been conspicuously quiet. Out of respect for one of our better allies, the U.S. has remained silent at the request of the British. No one from the Bush administration has publicly commented. Contrast this with the pleas from the Bush Sr. administration for Israel to constrain itself from retaliation after Sadaam launched Scud missiles against Israel during Gulf War I. The Americans are NOT requesting that Great Britain show restraint, yet we are not asking them to do anything. The position is “no comment”.

Bush and his advisors know that war with Iran now is the best thing that can happen for Western civilization. War with Iran is inevitable, just as World Wars I and II were inevitable. Despite the well-intentioned diplomacy and appeasement that preceded each war, appeasement was not enough to prevent it. Winston Churchill said of his predecessor Neville Chamberlain, “Chamberlain had a choice between war and dishonor. He chose dishonor, and got war”.

If the Western world is hesitant to confront Iran today, while it is practically bankrupt and using ancient Soviet weapons, what will happen when Iran gets a nuclear arsenal? Even the United States, under the most hawkish commander-in-chief, will hesitate to start a war that could quickly turn nuclear. If Iran reaches its goal of producing nuclear weapons before the West takes action to change the regime and end the Islamic Revolution, the Revolution will continue to expand, dominate its neighbors, take over the richest oil wells in the Middle East and eventually build an arsenal that rivals that of the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Threats of deterrence will be laughably ignored.

An enemy with this much firepower plus a death wish (see suicide bombers and the 2nd coming of the Mahdi) will be a problem that mankind has never faced.

War with Iran is inevitable. Iran does not have any territorial grievance with the United States. Yet, its leadership consistently foments crowds of its citizens to chant “Death to America”. Iran wants war with America. However, it wants it incrementally. Iran knows it will get destroyed in an all-out war today, but believes that if it can hold on until it gets nuclear weapons, it will have a chance. The blustering, kidnappings and proxy wars of today are an effort to push back the United States, without declaring all-out war against the United States.

The British hostage crisis is the latest escalation in this non-declared war. At some point, Iranian attempts at propaganda will reach too far. This particular crisis may be the catalyst that causes action that should have happened almost 30 years ago. The United States will look Tehran in the eye and say, “You have to ask yourself one question, punk: Do I feel lucky”?

Jihad

The threat of jihad, or Islamic holy war, is not well understood in the United States. The practitioners do not have a standing army, navy or air force. It would be utterly impossible for the jihadists to overthrow America militarily. However, that does not mean they are not a threat. The Islamic jihad has been going on since the 8th Century. Our enemy is very patient.

Apologists for Islamic jihadists usually point to the periods of Judaism or Christianity that took a bleak look on the sanctity of human rights. The Israelites that conquered Canaan after the Exodus, the Crusades and the Inquisition are examples. However, the difference between these episodes and the Korans’ call for jihad is that the Jews and Christians had occurrences of bad behavior. The Muslims have never stopped. Muslims have been fighting to establish the world-wide caliphate (Islamic rule of the world) since the beginning of Islam. It is written in their holy book that death for jihad is the only sure way into heaven. Muslims look at killing infidels (non-Muslims), the same way that Christians look at baptism.

The threat from the jihadists is two-pronged: Terrorism and infiltration. Terrorism is only a threat in the short term. Infiltration is the way jihadists overthrow governments.

Mohammad taught his followers to expand Islam through conversion by the sword. Non-Muslims were to either convert to Islam, pay the dhimmi tax (a dhimmi is a non-Muslim who is recognized as inferior by paying taxes for protection), or die. Through this practice, Islam spread from a small group of outcasts in Mecca, to a fighting force in Medina, to the Ottoman Empire that lasted until the end of World War I. The Crusades were actually a response by the Christian nations of Europe to the growing Islamic threat in the 11th Century. The caliphate expanded up until the 20th Century, when it was reduced. But it still exists today and it is currently growing.

All of the countries in the Middle East, except Israel, are ruled by Muslims. Most of the countries in North Africa and many countries in Southeast Asia are ruled by Muslims. There are currently over 30 wars (mostly in Africa) going on today and Muslims are on at least one side in nearly all of them. Calling Islam a Religion of Peace is a distortion of language that would make even Orwell cringe.

Islamic nations are ignored as a threat to the West because of their vast economic inferiority. However, the availability of nuclear weapons should change this type of thinking. Jihadists could not overthrow a government by igniting a nuclear weapon (at least not today), but they can certainly do some damage. Pakistan is a member of the nuclear weapons club and its moderately pro-Western government is constantly under threat from the country’s radicals (which include the displaced Taliban). If the Taliban or another anti-Western sect were to take control of Pakistan, our terrorist enemies would immediately have access to nuclear weapons.

The governments that support terrorism are supporting the jihadists that have infiltrated countries all over the world. As the population percentages increase for the jihadists, coupled with the support from countries such as our enemy Iran or our “friend” Saudi Arabia, the chances of overthrowing pro-Western governments increases. The more members of the caliphate, the more likely it is that other countries will join them soon. The United States will probably be the last man standing if the game advances that far, but do we really want to wait until we have to fight the rest of the world?

Patriotism

I am tired of trying to understand their motives. I can’t believe what they say, because half of it (which half?) are lies. I know this: An American war protestor looks the same as a European war protestor, who looks the same as an Islamic war protestor. The Europeans don’t pretend to support the American troops. The Islamics call for the death of the American troops. I can only surmise that the American war protestors do not support the troops.

This is no surprise, it’s only that the war protestors protest loudly when their patriotism is called into question. What is a “patriot”? Is it someone who stands behind their country, no matter what? I hope not, because if it is, I am not a patriot. I hate the US tax system. I hate the US welfare system. I hate the US immigration system. However, when our country is at war, I most definitely want our side to win.

If I preferred the tax, welfare and immigration systems of say, France, as an American I am free to move there. If I preferred the plethora of freedoms all Muslims enjoy who live under Sharia Law, I am free to leave for any backwards, godforsaken Middle Eastern country of my choosing. However, I don’t believe a better country has ever existed in history, let alone in our own times, as the United States of America. Therefore, when this country finds it necessary to slap some sense militarily into a country that doesn’t share our ideals, I take our side.

I did not agree with President Clinton when he decided to bomb Bosnia to save Muslims and alienate our World War II allies, the Serbs. However, I didn’t take to the streets in protest. I sat silently hoping for the best, even while watching the bodies of United States Rangers dragged through the streets of Mogadishu after their Blackhawk helicopter was hit by a US made Stinger missile, provided to the rebels in Afghanistan fighting the Soviet Union in the 1980’s. It’s a convoluted mess. The only straight line in the equation is that the United States has the interests of the free people of the world in mind. It may not always show in the short run, but it always shows in the long run.

Any people who say that the Iraqi people were better off under Sadaam than they are now are simply disingenuous. Certainly the elites of the Baathist party were better off, but then again so were the elites of the Nazi party under Hitler. The violence in Iraq is indeed a problem. However, it is much more solvable with Sadaam gone than with him in power. I think the plight of the Iraqi people is just another talking point of the anti-American war protestors. Yes, I question their patriotism.

The anti-war crowd pretends to support the troops for two reasons. First, it is political suicide to do otherwise. Americans will never again allow our troops returning home from combat to be spit upon. Second, bringing the troops home is a means to an end. They pretend to want it for the welfare of our soldiers, while in fact bringing our troops home means a defeat for America. Yes, I question their patriotism.

When America declares war, the only acceptable outcome is victory. Had we negotiated with Japan instead of forcing unconditional surrender, Japan would look much like North Korea does today. Instead of a US ally and an industrial power, Japan would be a rouge state working on nuclear weapons. It is inconceivable what Germany would look like, because Stalin never would have signed a peace agreement. It would probably still be a communist state. The Leftists in the anti-war movement may want this, but they can easily move to Europe if the wish to enjoy the benefits of communism. They want to change America instead. Yes, I question their patriotism.

The war on terrorism has become the litmus test of our time. Those who support it see the threat the Islamic world has put upon us. Those who ignore it see American Idol as a great show. Those who defy it see the chance to change America. Yes, I question their patriotism.

War Update

I know that most people in this country don’t follow the War as closely as I do. Here is a recap of what’s been happening in Iraq:

The United States has changed its strategy in Iraq. Instead of playing defense while waiting for democracy to take hold, the US has decided to deploy an additional 20k combat troops to the theatre, colloquially referred to as The Surge. 20k troops represent 5 battalions in the US Army. So far, 2 of the 5 battalions have been deployed. Since their arrival, violence in Baghdad has decreased by about 75%. The full deployment will be complete by June.

The 5 battalions are combat troops. Of the 140k soldiers in Iraq, 20% are combat troops, the other 80% are support troops. Unfortunately, our support troops are equally susceptible to roadside bombs and sniper rifles (both, courtesy of Iran) and are included in the casualty stats that the media loves to report.

The fact that Anna Nicole and Brittany Spears dominate the news coverage in mainstream media is a sign of success. If the Leftists in the media, who hate capitalism and America, could report bad news from Iraq, they would. No news is good news. We can hang these traitors later.

The United States Congress unanimously voted General Petreaus as the new commander of the Iraqi theatre. Yet, the Democrats voted later on a “non-binding” resolution that stated they disagreed with the strategy of General Petreaus. This is a weak and ineffective position. Petreaus literally wrote the book on counter-insurgency for the US military. He updated the war manuals of US doctrine, to improve on the way that the United States fights asymmetrical wars. The Surge is a test of the new doctrine. Even if one disagrees with it, it should still be allowed a chance to work.

The Democrats are grandstanding, as should be expected. They have no ideas, let alone any plans. They “approve” of a leader only because of political expediency. Whichever Democrat Presidential candidate emerges as the front-runner, let us only hope that it is a person who sees the problems that lead to Islam’s jihad against the West. (Hint: It’s in the Koran). However, this is a blind hope. The 3 frontrunners in the Democratic chase for Commander in Chief of the United States military are all dismissive of the threat that threatens all of us.

President Bush is successfully persecuting the war against Islamic terrorism, which is designed to destroy as many civilians as it takes to capitulate to Islamic authority. Strong leadership is what has helped defy any Islamic attack against a United States target since September 2001. Let’s continue that tradition.