WhatFinger

We must act now. Not only will ISIS be on the ash heap of history, but we will win-over the Muslim world which is watching to see strength or weakness. Appeasement isn't working. It is time for violence

The Enemy we face must be Ruthlessly Defeated, not Appeased


By —— Bio and Archives--November 20, 2015

American Politics, News, Opinion | Comments | Print Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us

“To conquer, we must destroy our enemies. We must not only die gallantly; we must kill devastatingly. The faster and more effectively you kill, the longer you will live”
— George S. Patton

With the despicable ISIS attacks in Paris, followed by the aerial bombing response by France against ISIS forces in Racca, Syria; we are seeing many on the Left double-down on a failed strategy of appeasement.

In a Nov. 19, 2015 editorial by Wesleyan Professor Ioana Emmy Matesan, she asks rhetorically about the French military response to the Paris slaughter: “But is such a military response really the most effective way to undermine ISIS, and to prevent future attacks like these?”

.

In an argument similar to what Hillary Clinton put forth in Dec. 2014 by claiming we should “empathize” with this enemy, Professor Matesan wrote, “It is also particularly important to understand that what has fueled much of ISIS recruitment, especially among idealistic Western youths, has been the refrain of social justice … to the perceived injustices against Muslims in Western countries like France.”  As Pres. Barack Obama seems to hold the same opinion, it’s time to explain why devastating violence to destroy ISIS is the clear answer over empathy and appeasement.

First, to show the extent of the problem. Speaking in Turkey after the Paris attacks – attacks he called a “setback” – the president claimed opposing the Syrian war refugees would help ISIS recruit and hurt our efforts. Professor Matesan wrote along a similar line of thought: “If we take a long-term view on ‘success’ and seek to minimize the recruiting pool for ISIS and to prevent future attacks, we cannot solely focus on military responses without a focus on justice as well. ... Improving domestic security can work, but it can also become counterproductive if it results in profiling, and if it doesn’t prioritize human security.” 

If Mateson’s words sound familiar, it’s because they have been driving U.S. policy for years. When top advisers to the federal government have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, it would be considered counterproductive to offend with questions. When the U.S. supported the Muslim Brotherhood taking power in Egypt and called for their return when General Al Sisi overthrew this Islamist organization, it defended its actions on trying to win over Arabs. It has driven presidential statements critical of Christian history and praising of Islamic history and practice to no avail.

Due to the Liberal strategy of “empathizing” with the enemy, the U.S. has refrained from serious military action against ISIS hoping to “win over” the Islamic world through perceived social justice and other such idealizations. However, while the U.S. has tip-toed around military action, ISIS has exploded across major slices of the Middle East and North Africa, committed crimes against humanity, continued open threats and murder against Americans, and now terrorizes allies in Europe. To claim that our current strategy of appeasement isn’t working is quite obvious to all but the most deluded. Despite all the friendship, empathy, and understanding we have shown our enemy and the greater Islamic world (while criticizing Western and Christian history), problems have gotten worse. Despite the fact that none of the Middle Eastern Islamic nations are accepting Muslim refugees, while the Western World has taken in millions of Muslim immigrants and refugees in recent years (with a disproportionate share enjoying government benefits) things only get worse. Not only is the strategy not working, but arguably ISIS recruitment could not be better.

What we should have learned with Radical Islamic terrorism is that perceived weakness leads to more terror, and strength against this enemy brings safety. The Israelis have learned this lesson the hard way over the years. When the Israelis attempted appeasement by unilaterally withdrawing from the Gaza strip about ten years ago (including the forced removal of their own Jewish citizens), it made the situation worse for Israel. Even before the last Jew left Gaza, rockets were flying from Gaza into Israel proper, and Hamas began calling for the complete destruction of Israel. 

In example after example, when the Israelis have shown strength they are safer, and yet in showing weakness they are attacked unmercifully. A closer example to the U.S. was in the quick conquest of Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks. In the 1990s, the U.S. was hit by terror attack after terror attack by Islamist groups, including Al Qaeda. The 1993 World Trade Center bombing; the attack on the U.S. Air Base at Kobar Towers, Saudi Arabia; the African embassies; and the USS Cole. In 1993, the U.S. withdrew from its combat mission after the tragedy of the Oct. 3, 1993 battle in Mogadishu. The lack of response and America’s perceived weakness drove the eventual attacks of 9/11.  Yet after the invasion of Afghanistan, the homeland has not been hit.

It is time to face the hard reality of the strategy required to win this war: Ruthless violence until the enemy is not only defeated, but humiliated, and his ideology shown to be a fraud!

One of our greatest military leaders, Gen. George S. Patton, understood the hard reality of human nature. He understood the need to ruthlessly apply violence in order to defeat enemies, particularly those enemies who act as bullies. Beyond any other person during World War II, Patton’s rhetoric and actions allowed for the defeat of Nazi Germany, which brought the rebuilding of the new Germany. Patton exhorted the use of maximum, overwhelming violence to win the war: “We’ll win this war, but we’ll win it only by fighting and by showing the Germans that we’ve got more guts than they have; or ever will have. We’re not going to just shoot the sons-of-b*tches, we’re going to rip out their living guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks. … War is a bloody, killing business. You’ve got to spill their blood, or they will spill yours. Rip them up the belly. Shoot them in the guts.”

Tough, yes. But it was what was needed at the time. What many didn’t know was Patton cried over the loss of his men, and wanted the war to end quickly with as few dead and wounded as possible. But he also wanted to finish the war once and for all. He knew that Nazism would only be defeated by ruthlessly defeating and humiliating the Nazi Army. From a lifetime studying war and human nature, Patton understood the reality of violence to defeat an enemy like the Nazis, violence which is the only way to defeat the ISIS ideology.

After Paris, but before a clearly impending attack on the U.S., we have a choice to make. We must act now, including troops on the ground in Syria and Iraq. Not only will ISIS be on the ash heap of history, but we will win-over the Muslim world which is watching to see strength or weakness. Appeasement isn’t working. It is time for violence.


CFPSubcribe

Only YOU can save CFP from Social Media Suppression. Tweet, Post, Forward, Subscribe or Bookmark us

Col. Bill Connor -- Bio and Archives | Comments

Bill Connor,  received his Bachelor’s of Arts from The Citadel in 1990. After serving over ten years as an Infantry Officer in the U.S. Army he received his Juris Doctorate from University of South Carolina in 2005.

He is currently an attorney with Hamilton and Associates in Columbia, South Carolina.

In May 2008, he returned from a yearlong combat deployment in Southern Afghanistan. During that time, he served as Joint Operations Officer for the Southern Region of Afghanistan developing and implementing the US advisory effort for Afghan National Security Forces. This effort occurred during the 2007 Taliban spring/summer offensive.

Due to success in that position, he was promoted to take command of the US advisory effort in the volatile province of Helmand. Shortly after arrival in Helmand, he was promoted in rank from Major to Lt. Colonel. In addition to command of US advisory teams, he was the senior American working with the United Kingdom senior staff. Upon return from Afghanistan, he published the book “Articles from War,”a memoir of his experiences and thoughts in Afghanistan.


Commenting Policy

Please adhere to our commenting policy to avoid being banned. As a privately owned website, we reserve the right to remove any comment and ban any user at any time.

Comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence and death, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal or abusive attacks on other users may be removed and result in a ban.
-- Follow these instructions on registering: