Ratissage, Ratonnade and Hama Rules

The basic flaw in the Iraq war (and in Afghanistan, too) is the thinking that to fight the Muslims on the ground, we needed to observe the rules of conventional war; fight them straight up in military engagements. The ultimate goal, of course, is to bring "democracy" and a decent way of life, as we know it, to these louts. This is utter fantasy. Unfortunately, the only way to deal with these Jihad-besotted people is on their own terms. The British and French (before they lost their nerves) knew how to deal with them.

On the North West Frontier, the present locale of the "tribes"; the Taliban and Al Qaida, the British would conduct punitive expeditions ("The Malakand Field Force" and all that) whenever the tribes got too rambunctious (like NOW); they would arrest, hang and burn until the tribes were sufficiently decimated and pacified. This would have to be done again and again, as the occasion required. Naturally, this would set off great consternation in right-thinking people back in Britain (the ones who were not exposed to the savages).

In North Africa, the French had the same approach with the tribes in the hinterland, called "Ratissage", where the French military chose to punish whole villages and towns from where they felt guerrilla attacks were taking place.. In the Algerian war, they also resorted to "Ratonnade" (literally a rat-clearing) in the cities; also useful for the accumulated Muslim human debris in US and European cities.

Of course, the British and French were amateurs compared to the Arabs themselves. The Syrians disciplined their own Muslims in the 1980's by destroying half the city of Hama after a terrorist attack on a military academy. One can only speculate on the positive outcome if we had applied "Hama Rules" in Falluja after they killed the four Americans and mutilated their bodies. the object lesson would have done a lot more to "pacify" Iraq than any any surge we could execute now.

"It's all about the troops" Really?

Has there been a more blatant display of cynicism and mendacity in recent American politics than the crocodile tears being shed by liberals and more leftist "progressives" in their concern fro the "troops"? Only the Clinton Administration scam "it's all about the children" to push their social goals would compare (come to think of it, didn't the the same people generate both these smoke screens?). The idea that "flowers-in-her-hair" Hillary or the two ditzes from California, Polosi and Boxer and the other "progressives" really care about working-class American soldiers is the height of mendacity. Their real attitude was inadvertently displayed by "foot-in-the mouth" John Kerry, who was roundly excoriated for showing his (and THEIR) disdain for dummies that go into the military and get sent to Iraq (remember: his going to Viet Nam was just to get "cred" to go into politics; when the liberal fashion and political "authenticity" shifted to the anti-war position, so did he). Was there ever such cynical reporting as is currently going on by the mainstream media? The front page of the NY Times and the evening news are filled daily with the gore and sad stories of the troops in the field and just about every funeral. The same Democrats who were instrumental in butchering the Defense budget every year are now cater walling over the inadequacy of the the equipment and protection of "our troops". The cause of the "troops" is especially delicious for the Democrats, since it can be used to damn the man they love to hate, Bush, with his natural constituency.

Certainly, some Democrats like Murtha and Webb have credibility and the sincere sentiments to speak out in support of the US military. However, being an ex-serviceman does not necessarily make you competent to discuss military tactics or national strategic interests.

Mostly, the current members of the political and "intellectual" establishment (i.e., mainstream media, think tank parasites and other species of "progressives") are the college generation from the Viet Nam era, and immediately after, who had absorbed (not too many original thinkers in that lot) all the conventional wisdom brainwashing regarding war (especially, heaven forbid, war against people of color - the "other"). Armed forces are only to be used for "good" as they define it; the only time fighting (VERY non-lethal fighting, at best) that can be envisioned is in defense of the currently-fashionable "other"; Muslim Bosnians and Kosovars at the top of the list). The interests of the United States are only valid if they coincide with the minority-of-choice. Forget about US strategic interests; our interests are only to be served by going hat-in-hand to the world to plead our victimhood (they loved how pathetic we looked after 9/11). And certainly not acceptable is seeking to punish our enemies (AKA Muslims all over the world); to me, the most righteous reason to use force.

I was against the war in Iraq before it started, as I am now. I always believed that the neocons were sincere and tragically naive about trying to bring democracy and other good Western values to the Arabs. I always felt (and I think I have been proven right) that it was a hopeless cause. Any society that is based on Islam, and that does not renounce it, cannot ever be brought into the democratic world. Islam breeds the habit of subservience and following of "religious" authority (even to blowing ones self up for the cause). It does not breed people who are capable of undertaking independent thought and action, which true practice of democracy requires. Come to think of it, the same habits of mind prevalent in Islam are prevalent on the political Left.

How should we deal with Iraq (and Muslims, in general)? Another Blog.

They will destroy us

"Iraq’s Shadow Widens Sunni-Shiite Split in U.S." - NY Times headline. The article talks about how they are vandalizing each others' places right here--- and supposedly by "educated" ones in our best universities. This is what we can expect of the "best" of them. One hates to think what the worst ones will do.

"Because what they have to say is so consistent with what is written in the Koran and the Hadith. And what the moderates fail to do is to say, listen, that’s all in there, but that wasn't meant for this context. And we have moved on. We can change the Koran, we can change the Hadith. That’s what’s missing." - Ayaan Hirsi Ali (in Sunday NY Times)

How can the US and other Western socities tolerate these people? Their fights and hatreds have come with them and will destroy our societies. The misapplication of our good principles of tolerance and openness by shortsighted and simplistic "elites" has resulted in introducing into our country of the most destructive element in our history. The idea that practicing Muslims will ever blend in just like other immigrant groups is a liberal fantasy. Islam is so out of sync with our professed values that no wishful thinking or ideological blindness will ever be able to overcome. We MUST selectively limit our input of Muslims to the likes of Ayaan Hirsi Ali - people who appreciate our values and who, in fact, renounce Islam.

Our open policy of blindly accepting 3rd world immigrants and refugees, especially Muslims, will prove to be the most disastrous "social policy" since the Romans allowed the first "peaceful" barbarians to settle within the borders of their empire. It has led to the creation and metastasising of the base camp and infrastructure for the full invasion of our country. We read constantly of the discovery of "cells" (like malignant micro-organisms invading the body). They are incubating and growing with each addition.

We never hear much about where the 9/11 murderers hung out and got their sustenance while they put their plan into action (sooooo Politically Incorrect) . They lived and thrived, of course, in the existing Muslim communities in this country (Northern Virginia, San Diego and Union City NJ).

Naturally, we are not allowed to even think or speak about any of this. In fact, we now hear the clamor about how we must take in more refugees from Iraq and Afghanistan as penance for our daring to defend ourselves against these barbarians who invaded us.

America Loses ------- Islam Wins!

The results of the November elections were that last nail in the coffin of America's (and the West's) attempt to confront Islam world-wide, and most especially here at home.

The Democrats will never allow or even contemplate the thought that we can or should "win" in Iraq and Afghanistan. They ensured that we would leave in humiliation from Viet Nam and are now in a position to do that in the Middle East. Sadly, in both Viet Nam and now, the Republicans are in a posture of collapse and total surrender (Petanism in America); the only hope is that some day another Reagan or W. will come to kick Republicans back into life to re-fight the fight in defense of our culture and values. Are the Democrats "disloyal"? Certainly not in their own eyes or in the eyes of the establishment media which is heavily populated (yes, let's be honest, controlled by) Liberals, who consider the Democrats their political wing (like the IRA and Shin Fein). Traitors? No (Vichy did not consider itself treasonous, either). However, they are most definitely deluded by their own ideological blinders, specifically in their cultural relativism and in applying the principles of the Enlightenment and Reason to people who are most definitely not enlightened or reasonable. Even more than their ideological blinders, the Democrats/Liberals have this visceral hatred of Bush/Cheney, et al. (they must not even be perceived to have accomplished their goal in Iraq) as to blind them to the consequences of an American humiliation in the Middle East, which would be worse and more consequential than the one in Viet Nam; Can America really withstand that scene again with Iranians and Al Qaida having their opinion of us as paper tigers confirmed again? Will we ever be able to re-gain our influence in the region any time soon? Comparisons to Viet Nam are relevant but inadequate: We were humiliated in East Asia and lost our influence, as predicted, but we were rescued by the collapse of the Soviet Union and Maoism, which left us standing alone ("winners" in East Asia by default). Nothing comparable will happen in the Middle East. We are dependent on them for our life-blood (oil) and cannot re-assert ourselves if our military might and will to use it are blunted. The real treachery here has been our allowing ourselves to be the hostages of these backward, violent, fanatical people (Muslims). And, contrary to what the Liberal cant would have us believe, it was not all the fault of Bush (he just got here) and the greedy oil companies and car companies; all "class" targets for our radically chic establishment. Liberals are just as guilty, if not more so, by blocking any solutions that did not have the "green" stamp of approval, even though the technologies touted were play toys and could not have possibly given us energy independence - and still can't.

How could we have won in Iraq (and still can)? That will be for another time. Two hints: "When in Rome do as the Romans do" and "Hama Rules".

Also deferred, for now, is the discussion of how, under Liberal duress, we are surrendering our country and leaving ourselves exposed to Islamic terrorism (physical and intellectual) in the name of our misapplied "liberal" principles.