Are you prepared to win?

I’m not picking on you M, because I honestly don’t know how you feel on things... And everything I type applies equally to myself as it might to others...

I can’t remember the date (and I don’t feel like checking), but sometime prior to the German invasion of Poland, the British Parliament had a vote relative to standing against the Nazis or to continue their policy of (functional) appeasement. They voted to appease, and Winston Churchill (my man) said something to the effect of, “you voted for appeasement, which also means you voted for a war.” Profound statement, I think.

I support the war in Iraq. And not for the reasons that the Bush administration so seemingly and ineptly misarticulated. The middle east appears to be a region gone nuts, fueled by radicalism, which inherently limits personal freedom, the free market, and other symptoms of capitalism. Instead, radicalism feeds itself by limiting freedom, keeping people impoverished, and indoctrinating them with hate since birth.

In short, my premise is that free and successful people personally don’t go commit suicide/terror against the infidels. And the best way to free people and allow them to become successful is to provide them with the opportunity of self-reliance through a democratic republic and capitalism. It is a theory, and as such, a gamble. But what other choice is there? Wait and do nothing? Talk to them? Appease them?

(For the record, with all the crap that Russia has done and is doing, I have every reason to suspect that there has been some funny business relative to the pre-war intelligence that every industrialized nation agreed upon.)

Make no mistake about it: war is historically waged between cultures (American Civil War aside); this is no different: islamic vs. Judeo Christian cultures. Second, lasting peace only comes through unabashed victory. Third, victory comes from a sound and thorough defeat (i.e., unconditional surrender) of one side relative to another. Fourth, victory has never come from a limited campaign. (e.g., Korea, Vietnam, Gulf part I). The only way to win is to thoroughly devastate the opponent (i.e., opposing culture). Period. (It's no wonder the old testiment is written as it is.)

To the best of my knowledge, there has been no major conflict “won” by a limited campaign. To win a war, collateral or civilian losses are not a bad thing; they are a good thing, because it limits their ability to wage war. And that act shortens your war, which saves your lives. Today’s paradigm almost seems to assume that the enemy must be choosing their evil by some cognitive deficit in which they cannot control; as such, we continue to deal with them as one would a child mentally disabled person who cannot be held accountable for their actions.

Our nation, driven by the lost generation (otherwise known as the baby boomers) have misguided American pop-values from reality into fantasies of some kind of white-guilt mythical utopia, where “talking” to one’s adversaries is better than beating them. Where your political opponent is more hated than the one that wants to kill you. Where we are worse than our own enemies who have attacked us.

This nation has just become historically illiterate. That nut in Iran is almost mirroring what Hitler did prior to dub-dub-2. And it’s incredible that we’re ostensibly dumping much of our national security on a country that doesn’t have its head in the sand (i.e., Israel). And based on the Lebanon fiasco, I’m not sure they have what it takes either.

And how's this for a mental exercise: We're refusing to use our nuclear arsenal--until they use theirs first. On a humanitarian level, it makes sense; on a rational level, it does not. How many Americans have to die until we get serious?

I’ve had this conversation ad finitum with one of my best friends, and we’ve both independently come to the conclusion that it’ll take another 2 or 3 hits (on a city-level) for our nation to re-derive their values such that this can be won. At this point, we're so soft that we'll only be motivated by direct and personal fear.

Or perhaps it is this: A successful war effort cannot be derived in a culture of moral relativism. If we’re not better than the radical terrorists, then how can we kill them? I do not subscribe to such a theory; we are better than the radical terrorists, thus giving us the right to kill them.

So if you opine “we no longer have the fortitude as a nation to win a war”, are you willing to make the sacrifice? If not, then who exactly are you talking about? A successful war campaign comes at the collective sacrifice and the mobilization of an entire culture. Who among us is willing to do that? [I’ve looked into the military; they don’t take my kind.]

There is no winning a limited campaign; victory only comes from full, unrestricted war yielding unconditional surrender. Thus to me, it is apparent that we do not have the values such that we can wage an unrestricted and fully mobilized war. And modern day terror isn't that far off from radical japanese imperialism. Both were suicidal and fought to the last man. They’re not winning; we’re just not fighting.

Comments?