A Word of Caution

Wealth, Women, and War is released in accordance with the solidarity principals of Occupy Wall Street adopted on February 9, 2012.
 Cliff Potts
December 3, 2014



A Word of Caution
  

If the War on Terror were an actual war, then the attacks against the United States would be continuing in rapid and escalating succession on U.S. soil. They have not. At best various independent groups of misguided religious jadists have acted independently of any central authority against various targets in the West.
This trend pretty much began with the “suicide” by an Islamic terrorist on July 4, 2002, acting alone. Hesham Mohamed Hadayet opened fire at the El Al Airlines ticket counter at Los Angeles International Airport. This event was followed by the John Allen Muhammed and Lee Boyd Malvo murders of ten people from October 2 to October 24, 2002 around the Baltimore-Washington Metropolitan Area.
Al-Qaeda is suspected in the March 11, 2004 commuter bombings in Madrid, Spain which killed 191 people and injured an additional 1,500. On August 28, 2004 a plot to bomb a subway station during the 2004 Republican National Convention by Shahawar Matin Siraj and James Elshafay was foiled.
The Islamic terrorist activities take a turn for the worse on July 7, 2005 when the London underground and a double-decker bus were attacked in London, England, killing 56 people and injuring over 700. On July 21, 2005, another series of bombs failed to detonate in London; they had a similar modus operandi to the July 7, 2005 bombings.
On March 3, 2006 Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar rammed an SUV into a crowded part of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, injuring nine people. On August 10, 2006 the transatlantic aircraft plot utilizing explosive liquids was foiled by British intelligence. Omeed Aziz Popal is awaiting trial for the murder of one pedestrian and the vehicular assault on 18 others following what is officially labeled “a rampage” in Freemont, California in the San Francisco Bay Area.
On May 7, 2007 six men acting on their own, inspired by Jihadist videos, were arrested for plotting to attack Fort Dix in New Jersey; three of the six entered the United States illegally from Mexico. On June 3, 2007 a plot to blow up the fuel supply at John F. Kennedy International Airport was thwarted. On June 29, 2007 a number of car bombs were found around London, England loaded with propane tanks and gasoline cans. On June 30, 2007 a Jeep Cherokee was driven into the main terminal at Glasgow International Airport; Dr. Bilal Abdullah, 27, and Dr. Kafeel Ahmed (suffering burns over 90% of his body) were arrested at the airport. Others were involved in the plot, and it is considered to be an Al-Qaeda sponsored operation.
Offically, Hesham Mohamed Hadayet , John Allen Muhammed and Lee Boyd Malvo, Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, and Omeed Aziz Popal, are not considered terrorists in the United States. This is not political correctness, or denial. This is an attempt by the authorities of the United States to keep a lid on the possible reprisal attack on innocent Muslims. This is seen in the plot by JDL Chairman Irv Rubin and Earl Krugel to blow up the King Fahd Mosque in Culver City, California on December 12, 2001; both men have since died.
Rubin committed suicide under suspicious circumstances and Krugel was hit over the head with a brick while in prison. The JDL plot was just one of a number of incidents following the September 11, 2001 attack which took the lives of 2,997 citizens in the United States.
At best the jihad against the Great Satan, as stated by Ayatollah Khomeini, has been a fiasco. It would seem that the Muslims have bought into their own propaganda. The Islamic extremists would rather die for their God than win liberation from Western occupation. It could be that liberation is unobtainable and the actions are to somehow shame the West into capitulation to the will of Islam. It did not work for the IRA (Irish Republican Army); it is not going to work for Islamic radicals.
Using Khomeini’s November 5, 1979 statement as a marker for the beginning of hostilities against the United States, over the past 28 years, the Islamic forces have come up with nothing better than road-side bombs in trash cans, car bombs, explosive vests, and the occasional Katyusha Rocket. As of late they have degraded to using gasoline cans rigged to explode.
Gasoline in its condensed liquid form does not explode, it burns. For the sake of this discussion we will not take that line of dialogue any further as there is no point in telling these people what they did wrong.
Are they actually trying to win a war of liberation, or are they engaged in jihad for the sake of jihad with no real end to the game other than wanton lawlessness in the name of God?
In 1950, North Korea, against the advice of the Soviet Union, invaded South Korea. In a matter of days they overran their southern neighbor. This action, like Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, may have been triggered by mixed signals coming out of Washington, D.C. The North Koreans, equipped with Soviet T-34 tanks, swept aside all South Korean opposition and successfully unified the country under communist rule on June 28, 1950; three days after the initial invasion. The South Korean Army had neither artillery nor armor sufficient to repel the attack.
On July 5, 1950, having a U.N. mandate, forces from the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Britain, France, South Africa, Turkey, Thailand, Greece, the Netherlands, Ethiopia, Colombia, the Philippines, Belgium, and Luxembourg began a counter offensive. Due to the demobilization following World War Two, the initial response to the North Korean invasion was dismal.
By August of 1950, the U.N. forces were pushed back to the city of Pusan in the southeastern corner of the peninsula. By September of 1950, the U.N. forces were reinforced to 180,000 men opposing the North Korean 100,000. On September 15, 1950 the U.S. invaded Inchon. They hit the beach with 70,000 U.S. Marine and Army troops and 8,600 South Korean nationals. By October of 1950, the U.N. forces had 135,000 North Korean POWs.
On October 25, China fearing an invasion by U.N. forces, engaged the U.S. with an army of 270,000. Through the end of 1950, the U.S. took heavy losses, and managed an orderly retreat out of North Korea. Seoul fell to the communists, again on January 4, 1951. The forces of China’s PVA (People's Volunteer Army – so dubbed to prevent a direct confrontation between the U.S. and China) could move no further south. The U.N. artillery and U.S. Air Force ground support had been so successful that supplies had to be moved at night by bicycle and ox-cart.
By February of 1951 the U.S. 2nd Infantry Division, including the French Battalion, learned how to address the Chinese tactics, and the war began to turn in favor of the U.N. again. On March 7, 1951 Seoul was again liberated.
In April 1951 the Chinese hit back with 700,000 men in the Chinese Spring Offensive and were stopped cold. The war stalled just north of the 38th Parallel which divided the Korean peninsula between the North and South at the end of World War Two. An armistice was put into effect on July 27, 1953, and to date North Korea and South Korea are technically still at war. Since neither China nor the United States officially declared war, both sides walked away to lick their wounds.
Total Casualties for the U.N. forces range around 474,000. Total casualties for the Communist are in the range or 1,500,000. Civilian deaths exceed either total, as is the case since the advent of mechanized warfare in World War One, and are numbered in the millions.
Various factors played into the Korean stalemate. Truman feared that Korea could spark World War Three. The fact that the Soviets were flying air support for the North Korean and Chinese forces to the 38th Parallel was hidden from the U.S. citizens in the 1950s. Truman, who had no misgivings about using the Atomic Bomb to end World War Two, was hesitant to fully mobilize the United States so soon after the defeat of Germany and Japan. He, like so many citizens of the United States, was war wary. The people of the United States were not inclined to see a war continue indefinitely which did not have definite aims. Running forces up and down the Korean peninsula was not something that they could fathom as a victory. The U.S. leadership was not inclined to lead the nation into a wider war against the Communist Chinese and the Soviet Union.
Hindsight, however, is very clear. Given the level of technology available to China and the Soviet Union in 1950, the likelihood of a clear western victory over the communists could have saved millions of lives and put an abrupt end to the Cold War. That, of course, is speculation, and the technological advantage of the west dwindled over the years.
Somehow, in the eyes of the Chinese and communist supporters around the world, the communists defeated the U.N. in Korea. It is hard to see how. That may serve the nationalist Chinese propaganda machine, but it is far from a realistic appraisal of the situation. The U.N. liberated South Korea. That was the only legitimate end-game. The U.N. stopped the Chinese in their tracks. North Korea has become impoverished and has little power in the world of politics. South Korea is now an economic powerhouse, taking on the U.S. production facilities. The Soviet Union dissolved. And, China is now working as a colony of the West.
Without meaning to sound cold, one can conclude that the Chinese consider it a victory because the U.N. did not engage in nuclear genocide and eradicate the massive civilian population of North Korea or China. If this is a victory for them, then it is a victory they can have. Even with China’s superior manpower, they could not hold their ground.
Movies like Red Dawn not withstanding, it would be nearly impossible to land a large number of troops on the U.S. mainland. It is vogue around the world to say we are incompetent warriors, but the casualties inflicted tell a greater story than the opinion of jealousy. It is not bravado to say that if a final showdown were to occur, the U.S. would lament and eventually mourn the casualties inflicted on the enemy, but we would use every means necessary, no matter how unchivalrous it is, to wage a genocidal war against the Chinese. This lesson does not come from the Korean Conflict; it comes from our own Civil War.
Briefly, for the first two years of the Civil War, Lincoln was hard pressed to find generals who could successfully lead the war against the Confederates. Once he put Grant and Sherman in charge the South was doomed. Sherman committed carnage across the South from Georgia to the Atlantic Ocean. Grant would not give up, nor give in, and proceeded to use everything available to grind the Confederacy into the ground. Men like Grant do exist in the United States today,
If Islamic radicals think that the survival of the Islamic people is a victory, then it is a victory that the West is willing to give them. If, however, we were to play by the Islamic rules, the same barbaric rules they learned from King Richard the Lionhearted, then the victory they now have would vanish like a soap bubble in the wind.
The West in general still has patience with Islam, but how long that will remain is not clear. There are many in the West who chide Europe and the U.S. for what has been done in Arab lands. There is some validity, based on criminology, to that chastisement. While the colonial actions and provocations are questionable, and criminal on the part of the various corporate players who have engaged in the region, it does beg one question: if the Islamic radicals have such support among their general populations why have they not achieved their “liberation” through the means they have selected since the end of World War One?
They were not able to retain the empire following World War One. They were not able to resist French or British occupation between the World War periods. They were not able to prevent the establishment of Israel. They were not able to successfully sustain opposition to the governments installed by the UK or the US. They were not able to overthrow the murderous Iraqi government. Yes, the West has interfered in the Arab world. All the skullduggery of MI-6 and the CIA has effectively toppled nationalist governments. However, if the Arabs were not so willing to sell out their own nationalism, national identity, and resources to the West, then all the covert operations would be fruitless. The U.S., even at the height of it capitalist power is not a God or a Demon. It is a nation, run by men, who are fallible.
These arguments may be overly simplistic, and somewhat obvious, but it still stands to reason that the Arab community has not effectively achieved anything outside of antagonizing the people of the west with little gain in the process. Iran, if one want to call that an example of modern Islamic pride, exists only because no one has funded the Iranian opposition or used force to topple them. Carter is no longer in office, 1978 was a long time ago. A man of Truman’s caliber supported by Generals like Eisenhower, Patton, or Bradley would have absolutely no qualms about unleashing the full furry of the U.S. war machine on any foreign power. In a confrontation where it is a choice between the citizens of the United States and Islam, it is a rather simple choice. We win; the enemy loses. The only reason that this has yet to occur is that the war has yet to escalate to that point. Right now, however, if the Arabs want to take a different path, they may find some tools in the history books worth considering.
India did free itself from British Colonial Power. If Islam cared more for their own people and their own national identity than individual power and wealth, then at some point the war against the West would have come to an end. As long as Islam can point to the West and charge the West for their own internal failings, they can continue selling out their own people to Western corporate influences. This is what the critics of the West habitually cite as the U.S. reasoning for perpetuating this war. In their schema, as long as the U.S. can blame the Arabs, the nations will not address its own culpability.
The gate swings both ways, and there is enough blame to go around. If Islamic forces truly wanted to be free of the West “occupational” forces then they would not continue with a line of action guaranteed to bring in the same occupational force. In a way they are like wayward children who insist on acting out just so they can get attention. If they wanted freedom they would see what does work and what does not work.
What did work was Gandhi’s nonviolent resistances in India. What has not worked is the continuation of a string of tactics which has only littered the earth with the bodies of the innocent. If this is winning, it is very hard to see how.
In the previous chapter we discussed how the use of religious identity brings in allies to a conflict which would not be aligned otherwise. This is the case with Iran’s political and material support of the Islamic fanatics. While it is hard to pinpoint a date, the Arabs lost the war against Israel. The best estimation would be it was lost in the 1973 Yom Kippur war. That defeat ledto the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, the loss of the Golan Heights by the Syrians, the obliteration of the Syrian Air Force, and the Saudi withdrawal of active support of the Palestinian Cause. The front then shifted to Iran, and the Persian people.
Since 1978 there has been a  lot of saber rattling, suicides in the name of Islam, and road side sabotage, but no progress in unseating Israel. This type of warfare produces martyrs, and headlines, but no authentic strategic advances. Other than political grandstanding that plays well within the local media, it is hard to see what the Islamic extremists have to gain by this continuation. In the absence of tactical and strategic victories, the only gain has to be logistical. Islam, by perpetuating the war, has a ready made foe which it strives to provoke on a regular basis so that it can rally its own people around a common enemy.
This is the same charge leveled against the West for the constantly shifting hot spots; the West suffers from fatigue and stress over the constant warfare. Whether or not that fatigue is taking its toll in the Islamic community has yet to be seen. There have been some reports coming out of Pakistan and Iran that the younger Muslims are less inclined to follow the hard line Islamic approach to life. They may be suffering from a war fatigue of their own. Islam may be heading the direction of the KKK and the Neo-Nazis in the United States.
They are losing popular support because their underlying philosophies are not living up to the reality of the world, or the promises of a better life. As a matter of fact they seem to be degrading the community far more than Western corporate influence is. While the Taliban is still in Afghanistan, it is resurrected in opposition to the NATO occupation forces, not in the call for Islamic purity. It is showing it colors as a violent political faction perpetuating violence in the protection of national identity, and the perpetuation of the opium trade, in opposition to the current government supported by NATO.
Islam is not a kind government philosophy. It is, by Muslim standards, oppressive and regressive. While it is beyond the scope of this report to get into the details of Sherri law, it is sufficient to say that Islam, like many Christian sects, picks and chooses what it will apply, how it will apply it, and what it will ignore. The use of the human wave (massing troops against a single point in order to assure that opposition line is broken) is not exactly sanctioned in the Quran. Furthermore, it was as ineffective against Iraq as it was against the U.N. forces in Korea. A burnt barrel of a 30 caliber machine gun can be replaced far easier than an Army can be raised. Leaving masses of young men writhing in agony in some soon to be forgotten battlefield is not an exercise in holiness. This addiction to violence and human sacrifice is not serving anyone.
In spite of Hezbollah’s boastful bravado to the contrary, Israel is not going anywhere. Palestine is not a vestige of antiquity. It was created by the British in the 1920s. Eighty percent of Palestine was handed over to the Arabs, and twenty percent was set aside as a Jewish homeland. That twenty percent was further diminished by the U.N.’s gerrymandering in the 1940s. The refugee camps did not come into existence by a dictate of the Jews in Israel. They came into existence from the Palestinians fleeing the violence of the Arab attack on Israel in the six-day war following the independence and recognition of Israel.
There are those in the U.S. and the E.U. who are whispering that Israel should be abolished. This is nonsense. If anything it smacks of rewarding aggressive criminal Bedouins for murdering civilians for the acquisition of a parcel of land no bigger the greater part of Chicago and its suburbs. One cannot say that Israel is without guilt and has always acted honorably, however, anti-Semitic sentiment aside there is no cause to punish Israel because the Islamic thugs want what they lost when they chose to back Germany in the First World War. If we consider that World War Two was a continuation of World War One, the current conflict is also a direct result of that initial conflict some hundred years ago in Europe.
To attempt to abolish Israel would set off a war that would be akin to the Armageddon of the Christian faith. Based on the numbers provided in the 1980s by Ground Zero the U.S. alone could expect 149 Million dead in a full scale Nuclear War. That is what we can expect from any attempt to dislodge Israel. Is the appeasement of Islam worth that kind of carnage?
According to David Horowitz, the activist, and Walid Phares, there is a movement afoot to dislodge the U.S. support of Israel through political means. Their theories center on the mass migration of Muslims from the affected regions of the globe to the United States. This is creating a more sympathetic climate for the idea that blanket support of Israel should be dropped.
The U.S. intelligence community has released two disquieting reports concerning Al-Qaeda. One is that Al-Qaeda is at the operative strength that it held before the 9/11 attacks. The second is that Al-Qaeda is attempting to recruit operatives in the United States in an effort to continue to engage in its ongoing murderous agenda. We have already seen that certain individuals are susceptible to the Islamic call to violence. How successful the Islamic radicals will be in recruiting members within the Muslim community rests on certain social and economic factors.
If the majority population of the U.S. begins to perceive all Middle Easterners as an enemy then it could further drive them into a sympatric posture toward Al-Qaeda. This is already happening in France, and Great Britain. The social stigma in conjunction with fear, prejudice, segregation, and an economic downturn could further push the Muslim community into the Al-Qaeda camp. The harsh reality of capitalism can be misconstrued as a form or disrespect to the Muslim people, and by extension to Islam.
Based on rhetoric we are hearing out of the E.U. and Great Britain from the Muslim community, this perceived disrespect due to the fear generated by the Islamic activities is the primary motivating factor for the slow escalation of violence in Great Britain. While the Patriot Act gives the U.S. authorities certain leeway in suspending the civil liberties of a suspected terrorist, neither the E.U. or the U.K. have such well defined specific legal protections. The U.K. has no first Amendment rights under constitutional law. The Muslim community in the E.U. and the U.K. do have some legitimate concerns, but the very acts they passively pardon are the cause of the increasing civil strain. Once again we are addressing life at level two of Maslow’s pyramid.
The other scenario mentioned was Vietnam. The people of the United States would like nothing more to put that entire era behind them. It is an embarrassment. First and foremost, the radicals who opposed the Vietnam War at the time were a minority. The majority were either fully supportive, or completely apathetic. That sums up both the sentiments and the failing of the U.S. propaganda of the era. Most people did not care what we were doing in Southeast Asia, and many did not see the Vietnamese as fully human. It is not that the Vietnamese won their freedom on the battlefield; it is that the U.S. abdicated its moral responsibility within the actions of the war.
Many veterans of the era blame the media coverage of the Vietnam War for turning public opinion against the war. For the most part people do not pay much attention to the media. If the media offers something that the viewers find offensive, the viewer simply turns it off. Local news take precedence over national news and international news lags even further behind in importance. Newspaper editors and book authors know this even more. People will skim through a document until they find some reason to reject the material and then toss it aside. Anyone who thinks that media has that much power in a free market capitalistic society is not thinking straight. We can, and do, “vote with our feet”, as the saying goes. The people of the U.S. cherish their individual ability to reject what they find distasteful. As such, blaming the media coverage for the failure in Vietnam is like blaming the runny nose for the infection.
Moreover, news was an after work affair in the 1960s. The average man came home and was well on his way to relaxation by the time national news aired. The college set were rolling and toking by the time the news came around to the rice patties of Vietnam. The only ones who may have been paying attention were the ones who were too young to imbibe or to vote.
The sited works concerning the cause of the Vietnam fiasco can go on ad nauseam. One of the best is a work from the late 1970s titled The Decline and Fall of the U.S. Army by a general in the Pentagon writing under the pen name of Cincinnatus.[1]  Vietnam has been a spectral apparition that has hounded the liberal and conservative policy makers for the past three decades. When one reflects on the chain of events that led us to the war in Southeast Asia, an honest conclusion was that Vietnam was an epic mistake.
The United States, while on the ground in Vietnam as advisors, recommended that the French negotiate with Ho Chi Min to find an equitable solution to the Vietnamese Civil War which rose out of the power vacuum following the Japanese withdrawal after World War Two. The South Vietnamese government, based on a Catholic French variation of plantation based capitalism, was wantonly corrupt and did not have the support of the predominately Buddhist communal population.
The United States under John Fitzgerald Kennedy actively supported the South Vietnamese government with elite Army units which later became known as the Green Berets. The United States escalated the war in Vietnam based on the Tonkin Gulf incident. According to the Johnson Administration a U.S. Navy vessel was fired upon by North Vietnam while in international waters within the Tonkin Gulf region of North Vietnam; this incident, still clouded in some mystery, is suspected to be a fabrication of the U.S. intelligence community at the request of the Johnson Administration. Once escalated, there was no clear military objective other than the containment of Communism in the region. Moreover, there was no exit strategy. There was no clear path to victory, and no vision on how to disengage from the aggression. At no point was it realistically suggested that North Vietnam be invaded and conquered. Even the United States could not see the government of Saigon managing a unified Vietnam; the U.S. had spent far too much time propping up the military rule which had been allowed to take control in the south in the 1960s.
By 1968 when the anti-war movement arose in the U.S., the nation had been at war in South East Asia for thirteen years, and there was no end in sight. Vietnam had become a foreign war for the sake of fighting a foreign war; as if it was a political statement to the Soviets and the Communist Chinese that the United States could engage in a prolonged struggle in the name of capitalism for the sake of the struggle itself. That violates one of the tenants of capitalism - a course of action has to be cost effective, efficient, and maintain a positive return on investment; the course of action in Vietnam was not pragmatic to these ends.
Once Vietnam was unified under the rule of the Communist North Vietnamese, communism did not spread through the region. Vietnam under the communists initiated the course of action which destroyed the murderous regime in Cambodia and withdrew once Cambodia was stabilized. Today Vietnam, like most countries in the Asian region, is flourishing under a centralized communist government acting like a national corporation and engaging the rest of the world in free market capitalism.
On almost every level the U.S. government misunderstood the Vietnamese people. This is not unusual since the U.S. government is confined to one socioeconomic class operating in one centralized location and has a propensity toward misunderstanding any population outside the narrow confines of its own social class. This, of course, includes the population of the United States.
The U.S. attempted to liberate a people from the tyranny of communism who simply did not want to be liberated and did not perceive the communists in the North were a threat to their centuries-old communal existence. The Vietnamese people saw the French and then the United States as being the primary threat. It is impossible to win a war when the allies whom you are fighting for see you as the primary cause of hostilities.
As to the opposition at home, there was one case that runs through the voices of the era: The Vietnam War was a never ending war. Like the Islamic counterpart today, the U.S. was fighting for the sake of fighting. It became a religious obsession in the U.S. government and once engaged it had no clear end.
We could beat them in the rice paddy, and they would bomb a check point in Saigon. We flattened their industry in Hanoi, and they would carry weapons in from China and pack them through Laos and Cambodia. No matter what the U.S. did in Vietnam, there was no clear path to victory for the forces of the United States. The only way we could liberate Vietnam was by getting out of the quagmire and let them decide their own fate. The majority of the Vietnamese people did not want U.S. forces in Vietnam. That has become apparent after the fact.
The war news playing across the screens of the nightly news fed a growing frustration with the youth of the era for being shanghaied into a fight that was woefully ill planned, and poorly executed. It was not an opposition to the Constitutional government of the United States. It was a reflection of the survival instinct given that there was no end in sight. Add to that, the lack of clear goals, the constant rotation of troops bringing home tales of the war’s horror, the draft exemption awarded along socioeconomic lines, the social and racial inequities within the United States, there was a raw social wound that was being probed on the nightly news.
This is a lesson which the Islamic radicals need to learn from the United Sates. A protracted war is not sustainable. Eventually the population grows tired of fighting for the sake of fighting, and they will seek alternative solutions to the situation.
While the fatalities inflicted upon the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq may seem like victories for Islam, they are not exactly punishing losses for the United States. The number one killer of young men in the United States currently is car accidents. In 2003, the same year we went to war in Iraq, the United States lost approximately 45,000 people to car accidents. Since 2003 the U.S. has lost roughly 3,000 troops to the insurgents in Iraq. During the same time frame the United States has lost approximately 180,000 people on the highways of the United States. It is safer to be in the Army and the Marines in Iraq than to take a drive on the U.S. highways. This is nothing new. One veteran of two tours in Vietnam was killed on leave before starting a third tour in-country; he was killed by a car while crossing Pacific Coast Highway on foot.
The losses in Iraq, therefore, sad as they are, do not amount to blistering punishment of the United States. The only real punishment is that which the U.S. has inflicted upon itself by engaging in a foreign war while engaged in economic expansion outside of the local economy in conjunction with a massive tax cut for the wealthy.
What is forgotten by the adversaries of the United States is that the Vietnam era generation were the children of the G.I. Generation. The veterans of World War Two, in spite of patriotic bravado, did not want to engage the communists at the same level with which they engaged Imperial Japan or the German Nazis. That is the main reason the Cold War never turned into a hot global war.
This is where the generational dynamics as proposed by Howel and Strauss come into play. Those who saw and suffered the carnage of World War Two were not inclined to fight that type of war again. Even today, with the dependence on high technology we see a reluctance to engage in that level of total war. The wanton murder of millions is not an idea that civilized people embrace willingly. This is the reason that we have the European Union now, and why, corporations are so desperate the run the affairs of the nations. War, at the level that existed from 1938 to 1945, contrary to popular opinion, was not good for business. There is nothing wrong with building weapons systems, but it is considered insanity to ever fully utilize them. Rumsfeld’s decision to minimize the number of troops sent to Iraq still reflects this horror of Total War. The United States is loath to commit to that level of warfare.
Having said all that, there is a caveat: The men and women who saw action in World War Two, and suffered the losses of loved ones and the economic deprivation of that war, are now surrendering peacefully to the care of the eternal. Their voice of caution, and moderation, has forever been stilled. Those who learned at their feet the horrors of war are now fading into retirement, and will soon join their older siblings. The ones who now run the nations know nothing of such horrors. They know nothing of cities being rendered smoldering piles of debris by conventional weapons. They have no knowledge of night time air raids sirens, overcrowded bomb shelters and the stench of humans cowering in fear, or surviving to recover, count, and bury the increasing mind numbing number of dead. They know nothing of mothers and fathers burying one son after another and seeing the family line halted in the struggle for the cause. Nor, for that matter, do our foes.
While it may seem arrogant to speak of the motivations of our enemies, it is clear enough that they have yet to come to terms with the finality of their own violence. They have wrapped themselves in the jihad mentality that embraces carnage and violence and they trust that the West will never resort to uncivilized genocide to solve the struggle. One can hope that their trust is well placed.



[1] Being 50, I have consumed many books over my lifetime. This may be suspect in today's anti-literate culture. This work is one such work. I barrowed it from the Chicago Public Library in 1982. Consumed it with great vigor as it explained exactly what happened in Vietnam and what went wrong. However, today, 2008, the ability to give you an exact citation is lost sine the work did not get catalogued on he internet. You'll have to forgive me; I have lived a real life and engaged in real adventures across the land over the past 26 years. Some details do get lost over time.

Comments