People wonder how the world has gotten into such a mess. The answer is simple, as is the remedy. Unfortunately, implementing the remedy may not be so simple, because it goes against the behaviors with which we in the civilized world have been so insidiously inculcated.
Back before the insular academic community had so much influence in areas about which they know nothing, war was a bad thing. The consequences of instigating a war were particularly bad if the instigator lost. I remember the good old days when waging war meant loads of civilian casualties, utter destruction of property in the path of combat and horrific outcomes for the loser. These were the realities that made war a thing to avoid. Hirohito immediately conceded when he saw the consequences of an atomic enema administered to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Loss of sovereignty, loss of territory, loss of rights, loss of life, loss of assets - these are all reasons to avoid war. Take away these consequences and waging war is a win-win situation. If you win, you win, and if you lose, you lose nothing and may actually gain something. Want a prime example? The Middle East on two fronts, Iraq and Israel, which actually have some of the same problems.
Let's start with the first politically correct, kinder and gentler war in the history of the world. The time was 1991, the war was with Iraq, and the players' names were Saddam, Bush and Colin Powell. For the first time ever, one side of the warring parties did not try to wipe out the other side. The United States, at the behest of the United Nations (read: Islamist-controlled United Nations), did not wipe out Saddam, but let him live to menace and massacre another day. The US also did not wreak punishing attacks on the instigator of the Gulf War -- Iraq -- thus letting the world know that invading another country was no longer such a risky business.
Fast-forward 12 years. Despite three elections, even the player's names are the same: Bush, Powell and Saddam. In the US' 'war on terror' (which is a defeatist war, since terror is merely the symptom; the true enemy is radical Islam) America determined Saddam to be a threat. After fair warning for Saddam to step down, we invaded Iraq and performed a Saddamectomy. Unfortunately, Saddam, like any other tyrant, does not operate in a vacuum. In America's ill-founded goal of making this as painless a war as possible, we left in place the entire war machine that supported Saddam. We are reaping the consequences of that now.
The Islamists now attacking the Iraqi reconstruction forces were given a roadmap to the civilized world's Achilles heel. This weakness is our desire to make war as nice and people-friendly as possible. We shudder at the thought that anyone but our very specific target may get hurt. We try to minimize collateral damage. We go out of our way to insure the rights, the well-being, and the sensibilities of everyone, including our enemy.
So the Islamists now use our abhorrence of true warfare against us. They go out of their way to create horror and collateral damage. They don't merely capture soldiers, they torture and kill them and then mutilate the bodies (this has been done to Israeli soldiers, too). They also have no consideration for their fellow countrymen. If we hadn't been so nice when we were engaging the enemy, the coalition forces, as well as whatever innocent population remains, would not be undergoing round two of the war now.
Then there is Israel. In an effort to appease misplaced international sensibilities, Israel has been making concessions to the losers/aggressors in all the wars she was forced to fight. Egypt attacked her, lost territory and was given it back in a peace treaty that Egypt breaks on a daily basis with anti-Semitic lies and propaganda. The Arabs now occupying Israeli land that she won when she was attacked are given royal treatment by the world as downtrodden victims. And these people were the aggressors.
Now the world insists that Israel give the very people who are trying, through an asymmetrical war, to wreak genocide upon her land, a portion of which she won when she was attacked. This is rewarding war and rewarding the aggressors. Meanwhile, Israel, instead of stopping this 60-year war with extreme prejudice -- which would probably end the war once and for all -- is prolonging it by being 'nice' to the enemy. Israel provides her enemy's citizens (who support the war by an overwhelming majority) with electricity, water, jobs, even medical services when necessary. Therefore, the aggressor in this war has no reason for stopping it. And, as if treating the instigators of war in a kind way is not enough, the world wants Israel to reward her attackers with their own country in the heart of Israeli territory. Again, rewarding warmongers and encouraging more of the same.
If you have any suspicions that the aggressors (Arabs living in Jewish Palestine) have any legitimate claims to back up their genocidal war upon Israel, one of their own leaders makes it very clear that they do not. PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein, in an interview with the Dutch newspaper Trouw (on March 31, 1977) stated:
"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality, today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian people' to oppose Zionism."
Making war a nice thing is the last thing we should be doing if we want to prevent war. It is also the fast track to losing, even though you've already won.
Back before the insular academic community had so much influence in areas about which they know nothing, war was a bad thing. The consequences of instigating a war were particularly bad if the instigator lost. I remember the good old days when waging war meant loads of civilian casualties, utter destruction of property in the path of combat and horrific outcomes for the loser. These were the realities that made war a thing to avoid. Hirohito immediately conceded when he saw the consequences of an atomic enema administered to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Loss of sovereignty, loss of territory, loss of rights, loss of life, loss of assets - these are all reasons to avoid war. Take away these consequences and waging war is a win-win situation. If you win, you win, and if you lose, you lose nothing and may actually gain something. Want a prime example? The Middle East on two fronts, Iraq and Israel, which actually have some of the same problems.
Let's start with the first politically correct, kinder and gentler war in the history of the world. The time was 1991, the war was with Iraq, and the players' names were Saddam, Bush and Colin Powell. For the first time ever, one side of the warring parties did not try to wipe out the other side. The United States, at the behest of the United Nations (read: Islamist-controlled United Nations), did not wipe out Saddam, but let him live to menace and massacre another day. The US also did not wreak punishing attacks on the instigator of the Gulf War -- Iraq -- thus letting the world know that invading another country was no longer such a risky business.
Fast-forward 12 years. Despite three elections, even the player's names are the same: Bush, Powell and Saddam. In the US' 'war on terror' (which is a defeatist war, since terror is merely the symptom; the true enemy is radical Islam) America determined Saddam to be a threat. After fair warning for Saddam to step down, we invaded Iraq and performed a Saddamectomy. Unfortunately, Saddam, like any other tyrant, does not operate in a vacuum. In America's ill-founded goal of making this as painless a war as possible, we left in place the entire war machine that supported Saddam. We are reaping the consequences of that now.
The Islamists now attacking the Iraqi reconstruction forces were given a roadmap to the civilized world's Achilles heel. This weakness is our desire to make war as nice and people-friendly as possible. We shudder at the thought that anyone but our very specific target may get hurt. We try to minimize collateral damage. We go out of our way to insure the rights, the well-being, and the sensibilities of everyone, including our enemy.
So the Islamists now use our abhorrence of true warfare against us. They go out of their way to create horror and collateral damage. They don't merely capture soldiers, they torture and kill them and then mutilate the bodies (this has been done to Israeli soldiers, too). They also have no consideration for their fellow countrymen. If we hadn't been so nice when we were engaging the enemy, the coalition forces, as well as whatever innocent population remains, would not be undergoing round two of the war now.
Then there is Israel. In an effort to appease misplaced international sensibilities, Israel has been making concessions to the losers/aggressors in all the wars she was forced to fight. Egypt attacked her, lost territory and was given it back in a peace treaty that Egypt breaks on a daily basis with anti-Semitic lies and propaganda. The Arabs now occupying Israeli land that she won when she was attacked are given royal treatment by the world as downtrodden victims. And these people were the aggressors.
Now the world insists that Israel give the very people who are trying, through an asymmetrical war, to wreak genocide upon her land, a portion of which she won when she was attacked. This is rewarding war and rewarding the aggressors. Meanwhile, Israel, instead of stopping this 60-year war with extreme prejudice -- which would probably end the war once and for all -- is prolonging it by being 'nice' to the enemy. Israel provides her enemy's citizens (who support the war by an overwhelming majority) with electricity, water, jobs, even medical services when necessary. Therefore, the aggressor in this war has no reason for stopping it. And, as if treating the instigators of war in a kind way is not enough, the world wants Israel to reward her attackers with their own country in the heart of Israeli territory. Again, rewarding warmongers and encouraging more of the same.
If you have any suspicions that the aggressors (Arabs living in Jewish Palestine) have any legitimate claims to back up their genocidal war upon Israel, one of their own leaders makes it very clear that they do not. PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein, in an interview with the Dutch newspaper Trouw (on March 31, 1977) stated:
"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality, today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian people' to oppose Zionism."
Making war a nice thing is the last thing we should be doing if we want to prevent war. It is also the fast track to losing, even though you've already won.