Saturday, December 27, 2003
The Enemy Within (Remix)
I really don't know why the hell this is so confusing to some people. I'm even more mystified that some people are so oblivious to reality that this never even seems to enter their "thought" stream.
What am I ranting about? The value of will in times of war.
It's a truism of war that the entire point of war is to convince your enemy that it is in his own best interest to quit. In other words: the point of war is to break your enemy's will to fight. Do that, and, by definition, you've won.
You don't have to be a military genius (I'm certainly not) to know this. And many non-geniuses know it quite well. That principal was instrumental in our capitulation during the Vietnam War, though our enemy knew that it wasn't his task to break the will of the American military: his task was to break the will of the American People. Ho Chi Minh made no secret of his task. Hell, he explained it to anybody (e.g. Western media) who would listen. And he was indisputably successful in demoralizing a vocal percentage of the American People. He barley had to try: a certain group of our fellow citizens were all too ready to be demoralized. And little has changed since then.
And that's one of the things that drives me right up the wall here. A basic tenet of defeating an enemy in general, and it's particular application when your target is the United States, a basic rule-of-thumb that every shabby insurgent and tin-pot dictator on the planet knows, is simply not understood by a segment of the American population. This is especially alarming since that principal is frequently deployed against us.
Like it is now. In Iraq.
The Iraqi insurgents and Al Qaeda itself understand that they would have no chance of success at all if they were to form up divisions and take the field of battle openly against the American military. They're bastards, but they're not stupid bastards. They know that their achievable goal (and the only one that has any chance of success) is to demoralize the American people so that we will accede to their demands (get out of Iraq, get out of Saudi Arabia, etc.).
So, simply (and accurately) put: The War on Terrorism is a war of wills between the people of the United States of America and the forces of international terrorism.
A war of wills: a test to determine who will give up first.
By definition, we will have lost this war at such point as we decide to allow the enemy to impose his will on us. That said, I now turn to the other end of this problem (and the other thing that leaves me in frustrated stupefaction): The enemy already has a leg up on his goal because there is in America a consistent and pervasive group of people who are willing to take the side of an enemy (any enemy) of America. People all too willing to give the enemy that leg up he’s getting.
Some of these people do not realize that the enemy is actively using them. Now, I know what you're thinking: Uh oh! Now he's gone right round the bend with this "Enemies Within" paranoia. But think about what I wrote. If it is the goal of our enemy to break our will to fight, to impose their will on us, then one of their necessary tools is psychological warfare. They want to shape what we think, and one of the most obvious ways of doing that is by influencing what we see on TV, hear on the radio and read on the Internet.
An example of that was when Al Qaeda struck the WTC and the Pentagon. At the time of the attacks the media were focused on the event to the exclusion of all else for days. Obviously, the attacks had a military value to Al Qaeda; they hit our economy in a way that cost billions of dollars and deepened and prolonged an existing recession. But, primarily, the attacks were meant to terrorize. The attacks were designed and executed with the explicit goal of scaring us back to our shores, of imposing their will on us. Changing our minds.
Of course, the media had no choice but to show us all what was going on in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. I even think I could make an argument that they showed not enough of what had happened. I am merely pointing out that one of the most important weapons available to Al Qaeda is the ability to put before our eyes and ears information that they believe will cause us to decide to do what they say.
You, I, and every American we know were the real targets of 9/11. And the reason Al Qaeda's attack was successful in at least one of its goals (propagandizing about how they are strong and we are not safe) is that it was reported. Thus, as I said, some people do not realize that the enemy is actively using them. In this circumstance I refer to the US media. No fault should be laid upon them for this, of course. But it's a fact worth noting for future reference.
Some people, however, are unaware of their being used by the enemy, but most certainly are to be blamed for their complicity with him. Of these I direct your attention to people like Barbara Streisand (and other left-wing Hollywood elites), most of the Democratic presidential candidates, leftist columnists (and Tokyo Rose wannabes) like Paul Krugman, news editors and reporters who distort the news by manipulating the balance of stories (pro-US vs. anti-US), and other advocates of US retreat and submission. I grant them the charity of believing that they are not knowingly aiding and comforting the enemy because I have a hard time believing that they would actively help him. However, they are active participants in doing the exact same thing as is Al Qaeda: trying to convince the American People that they should not be confronting our enemies, but should, instead, run back home, hide under the bed, and count on the kindness of Osama bin Ladin to assure our safety.
Other people who are willing to take supporting roles for America's enemies are even more pernicious, and intentionally so. These people so hate what America stands for and America's military might, influence and will to act that they intentionally take actions that are designed to negatively impact our efforts in the War on Terrorism. I include among these people the journalists and columnists who intentionally misquote public officials so as to heap scorn upon them (i.e. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, who truncated a quote from President Bush to give the impression that he was callous towards our troops who have died in Iraq) and intentionally misreport in order to negatively affect US or allied public opinion about the success of our war efforts (i.e. BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan, who dramatically and emphatically reported that we had not taken Baghdad Airport when, in fact, we had hours before). But there are others in this group as well.
Another recent example of these people's actions that forward the goals of our enemies was seen when a few thousand reservists were activated and were ordered to report to Fort Lewis near Tacoma, Washington. Somehow the anti-American group known as Not In Our Name, along with several other organizations, found out the time that the reservists were to report.
These groups organized a "protest" at the gate where most of the reservists would enter the fort. Some of the signs held by the "protestors" urged the reservists to not report for duty, or to "resist" their officers by refusing to obey orders. Now, I put quotation marks around "protest" and "protestors" for a very specific reason: those were not protests, nor protestors; they were enemy actions by active enemy collaborators.
Am I being extreme? Hardly. If, as I've already said, the very essence of this War on Terror is a test of wills between America and her enemies then the state of mind (e.g. morale, good order and discipline) of our military and the strength-of-will of our citizenry are strategic national resources. Attempts to destroy or damage those resources further the direct goals of our enemies. That was the clear intent of the "protestors," whether they say so or not. That they may not see themselves as enemies of the United Stats proves only their ignorance, not their nobility.
There are, of course, more extreme examples. During the build up to the war in Iraq several people attempted to interfere with the military domestically by trying to foul the shipping of materiel. That was an enemy action. I have read at least one post on a leftist website wherein the poster openly advocated the assassination of the President. That is a direct, intentional enemy action. There are now instances of people posting on the web, stating on the radio, and writing in publications an explicit desire to see more and more of our own military personnel killed in Iraq. They want this so that American public opinion will turn against the Iraq war in particular and the War on Terror in general. This, too, is a direct, knowing, enemy action.
These people are not merely engaging in the exercise of freedom of speech. They're not merely engaging in sedition (which is permissible). They are both advocating and actively engaging in actions that facilitate and forward the enemy's goals. They are enemies of the United States.
One other thing should be considered: the will of the enemy to continue the fight. If they are trying to break our will to fight, it is also true that we are trying to break theirs. Like I said, the whole point is to get the enemy to believe that it's in his own best interest to quit. What do you think goes through the mind of the enemy when he sees BBC and CNN reporting that his efforts against us are not only successful on a military basis, but also are having the result of demoralizing the American People? What does he think when he watches our entertainment elites criticizing the conduct and possibility of success of this war? What is he to make of the leading Democrat candidate openly speculating that the President knew in advance about the imminent slaughter of 3,000 American citizens?
Given all this, and all the other indicators of US public opinion available to our enemy, do you think he is more convinced that we will continue the fight? Or, as I see it, is he more likely to conclude that our will is finally breaking, and if he keeps up his fight just a while longer then he will finally reach his goal of having the American will broken, soon to be followed by our Somalia-like retreat. Do the actions of these people I've described forward our goal of breaking our enemy's will? Or, do they forward his perception that he is actually succeeding? The longer our enemy thinks victory is possible for him the longer he will carry on the fight, and the longer our people will be at risk.
Because these people encourage our enemy with their actions, the war will last longer, and more of our military personnel (and perhaps more of the citizenry) will die. It can be difficult for some people to believe that something so insubstantial as "the will to fight" can actually affect the real world, and the lives of real people. But affecting that little idea, the will to fight, is the whole point of war, which is a very real-world thing indeed.
Do I advocate the jailing of all these people? Well, not all, no. Clearly those who advocate assassination, and those who interfere with military operations should be jailed (though, admittedly, I'd opt for launching them off the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln, unaccompanied by an aircraft). Those who actively try to erode our national will to survive, attempt to incite mutiny in our military, engage in intentional propaganda in support of our enemies and intentionally distort the reporting of front-lines news to further that same goal should be known for what they are: agents of enemy aid and comfort; prolongers of war; people who's actions directly result in American deaths.
No matter how much they whine and rage to the contrary, no matter how many times they shriek "McCarthyism!" no matter how often they strip off their (no doubt) unwashed clothes and spell "PEACE!" with their shriveled naked bodies - agents of enemy aid and comfort they are. Even if some of them don't know that they are such agents, they are just the same.
I really don't know why the hell this is so confusing to some people. I'm even more mystified that some people are so oblivious to reality that this never even seems to enter their "thought" stream.
What am I ranting about? The value of will in times of war.
It's a truism of war that the entire point of war is to convince your enemy that it is in his own best interest to quit. In other words: the point of war is to break your enemy's will to fight. Do that, and, by definition, you've won.
You don't have to be a military genius (I'm certainly not) to know this. And many non-geniuses know it quite well. That principal was instrumental in our capitulation during the Vietnam War, though our enemy knew that it wasn't his task to break the will of the American military: his task was to break the will of the American People. Ho Chi Minh made no secret of his task. Hell, he explained it to anybody (e.g. Western media) who would listen. And he was indisputably successful in demoralizing a vocal percentage of the American People. He barley had to try: a certain group of our fellow citizens were all too ready to be demoralized. And little has changed since then.
And that's one of the things that drives me right up the wall here. A basic tenet of defeating an enemy in general, and it's particular application when your target is the United States, a basic rule-of-thumb that every shabby insurgent and tin-pot dictator on the planet knows, is simply not understood by a segment of the American population. This is especially alarming since that principal is frequently deployed against us.
Like it is now. In Iraq.
The Iraqi insurgents and Al Qaeda itself understand that they would have no chance of success at all if they were to form up divisions and take the field of battle openly against the American military. They're bastards, but they're not stupid bastards. They know that their achievable goal (and the only one that has any chance of success) is to demoralize the American people so that we will accede to their demands (get out of Iraq, get out of Saudi Arabia, etc.).
So, simply (and accurately) put: The War on Terrorism is a war of wills between the people of the United States of America and the forces of international terrorism.
A war of wills: a test to determine who will give up first.
By definition, we will have lost this war at such point as we decide to allow the enemy to impose his will on us. That said, I now turn to the other end of this problem (and the other thing that leaves me in frustrated stupefaction): The enemy already has a leg up on his goal because there is in America a consistent and pervasive group of people who are willing to take the side of an enemy (any enemy) of America. People all too willing to give the enemy that leg up he’s getting.
Some of these people do not realize that the enemy is actively using them. Now, I know what you're thinking: Uh oh! Now he's gone right round the bend with this "Enemies Within" paranoia. But think about what I wrote. If it is the goal of our enemy to break our will to fight, to impose their will on us, then one of their necessary tools is psychological warfare. They want to shape what we think, and one of the most obvious ways of doing that is by influencing what we see on TV, hear on the radio and read on the Internet.
An example of that was when Al Qaeda struck the WTC and the Pentagon. At the time of the attacks the media were focused on the event to the exclusion of all else for days. Obviously, the attacks had a military value to Al Qaeda; they hit our economy in a way that cost billions of dollars and deepened and prolonged an existing recession. But, primarily, the attacks were meant to terrorize. The attacks were designed and executed with the explicit goal of scaring us back to our shores, of imposing their will on us. Changing our minds.
Of course, the media had no choice but to show us all what was going on in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. I even think I could make an argument that they showed not enough of what had happened. I am merely pointing out that one of the most important weapons available to Al Qaeda is the ability to put before our eyes and ears information that they believe will cause us to decide to do what they say.
You, I, and every American we know were the real targets of 9/11. And the reason Al Qaeda's attack was successful in at least one of its goals (propagandizing about how they are strong and we are not safe) is that it was reported. Thus, as I said, some people do not realize that the enemy is actively using them. In this circumstance I refer to the US media. No fault should be laid upon them for this, of course. But it's a fact worth noting for future reference.
Some people, however, are unaware of their being used by the enemy, but most certainly are to be blamed for their complicity with him. Of these I direct your attention to people like Barbara Streisand (and other left-wing Hollywood elites), most of the Democratic presidential candidates, leftist columnists (and Tokyo Rose wannabes) like Paul Krugman, news editors and reporters who distort the news by manipulating the balance of stories (pro-US vs. anti-US), and other advocates of US retreat and submission. I grant them the charity of believing that they are not knowingly aiding and comforting the enemy because I have a hard time believing that they would actively help him. However, they are active participants in doing the exact same thing as is Al Qaeda: trying to convince the American People that they should not be confronting our enemies, but should, instead, run back home, hide under the bed, and count on the kindness of Osama bin Ladin to assure our safety.
Other people who are willing to take supporting roles for America's enemies are even more pernicious, and intentionally so. These people so hate what America stands for and America's military might, influence and will to act that they intentionally take actions that are designed to negatively impact our efforts in the War on Terrorism. I include among these people the journalists and columnists who intentionally misquote public officials so as to heap scorn upon them (i.e. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, who truncated a quote from President Bush to give the impression that he was callous towards our troops who have died in Iraq) and intentionally misreport in order to negatively affect US or allied public opinion about the success of our war efforts (i.e. BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan, who dramatically and emphatically reported that we had not taken Baghdad Airport when, in fact, we had hours before). But there are others in this group as well.
Another recent example of these people's actions that forward the goals of our enemies was seen when a few thousand reservists were activated and were ordered to report to Fort Lewis near Tacoma, Washington. Somehow the anti-American group known as Not In Our Name, along with several other organizations, found out the time that the reservists were to report.
These groups organized a "protest" at the gate where most of the reservists would enter the fort. Some of the signs held by the "protestors" urged the reservists to not report for duty, or to "resist" their officers by refusing to obey orders. Now, I put quotation marks around "protest" and "protestors" for a very specific reason: those were not protests, nor protestors; they were enemy actions by active enemy collaborators.
Am I being extreme? Hardly. If, as I've already said, the very essence of this War on Terror is a test of wills between America and her enemies then the state of mind (e.g. morale, good order and discipline) of our military and the strength-of-will of our citizenry are strategic national resources. Attempts to destroy or damage those resources further the direct goals of our enemies. That was the clear intent of the "protestors," whether they say so or not. That they may not see themselves as enemies of the United Stats proves only their ignorance, not their nobility.
There are, of course, more extreme examples. During the build up to the war in Iraq several people attempted to interfere with the military domestically by trying to foul the shipping of materiel. That was an enemy action. I have read at least one post on a leftist website wherein the poster openly advocated the assassination of the President. That is a direct, intentional enemy action. There are now instances of people posting on the web, stating on the radio, and writing in publications an explicit desire to see more and more of our own military personnel killed in Iraq. They want this so that American public opinion will turn against the Iraq war in particular and the War on Terror in general. This, too, is a direct, knowing, enemy action.
These people are not merely engaging in the exercise of freedom of speech. They're not merely engaging in sedition (which is permissible). They are both advocating and actively engaging in actions that facilitate and forward the enemy's goals. They are enemies of the United States.
One other thing should be considered: the will of the enemy to continue the fight. If they are trying to break our will to fight, it is also true that we are trying to break theirs. Like I said, the whole point is to get the enemy to believe that it's in his own best interest to quit. What do you think goes through the mind of the enemy when he sees BBC and CNN reporting that his efforts against us are not only successful on a military basis, but also are having the result of demoralizing the American People? What does he think when he watches our entertainment elites criticizing the conduct and possibility of success of this war? What is he to make of the leading Democrat candidate openly speculating that the President knew in advance about the imminent slaughter of 3,000 American citizens?
Given all this, and all the other indicators of US public opinion available to our enemy, do you think he is more convinced that we will continue the fight? Or, as I see it, is he more likely to conclude that our will is finally breaking, and if he keeps up his fight just a while longer then he will finally reach his goal of having the American will broken, soon to be followed by our Somalia-like retreat. Do the actions of these people I've described forward our goal of breaking our enemy's will? Or, do they forward his perception that he is actually succeeding? The longer our enemy thinks victory is possible for him the longer he will carry on the fight, and the longer our people will be at risk.
Because these people encourage our enemy with their actions, the war will last longer, and more of our military personnel (and perhaps more of the citizenry) will die. It can be difficult for some people to believe that something so insubstantial as "the will to fight" can actually affect the real world, and the lives of real people. But affecting that little idea, the will to fight, is the whole point of war, which is a very real-world thing indeed.
Do I advocate the jailing of all these people? Well, not all, no. Clearly those who advocate assassination, and those who interfere with military operations should be jailed (though, admittedly, I'd opt for launching them off the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln, unaccompanied by an aircraft). Those who actively try to erode our national will to survive, attempt to incite mutiny in our military, engage in intentional propaganda in support of our enemies and intentionally distort the reporting of front-lines news to further that same goal should be known for what they are: agents of enemy aid and comfort; prolongers of war; people who's actions directly result in American deaths.
No matter how much they whine and rage to the contrary, no matter how many times they shriek "McCarthyism!" no matter how often they strip off their (no doubt) unwashed clothes and spell "PEACE!" with their shriveled naked bodies - agents of enemy aid and comfort they are. Even if some of them don't know that they are such agents, they are just the same.
Comments:
Post a Comment
