We are not now nor have we been in a fight with radical terrorism or ISIS. We have played at fighting, we have talked as if we might be fighting, but we have not made the commitment to actually defeat this enemy. The President’s actions seem to indicate he doesn’t really see this as a major problem. Drones strikes at the leadership of ISIS or Al Qaeda are not the answer.
Many of our western leaders can’t even say Radical Islam for fear of offending some mysterious group of “moderate” Muslims. But are they moderate if they can be turned so easily? Muslims that are in the fight with us understand this and are not offended by naming the enemy. This kind of thinking not only irrational but dangerous.
So how do we win against this enemy? That’s not nearly as hard to understand as most politicians would have you believe. The goal must be to see the caliphate in complete ruin. The flags of ISIS and Jihad must be laid to waste. Their mouthpieces so discredited that no one listens.
Once they are militarily defeated they must be ideologically defeated. This can only happen if we remove the political correctness from our vocabulary and our actions.
The issue we face in the United States and Europe is that we can’t face war. Oh, we can send a few thousand troops with a half-assed strategy all over the world and selectively kill a few hundred terrorists but we won’t commit to an all-out war.
We haven’t since WW II. We have also not won a war since then. I don’t count Grenada or Panama as wars. Afghanistan is a complete mess with the Taliban controlling more area today then they have since the US invasion (Dilanian, 2016). Iraq we walked out on after dismantling their government and military. All while war continued in these countries.
So how do you win a war? Well, one is that you cut off all communications, you punish those doing business with the enemy and very important you must destroy the ideology. You destroy everything associated with the enemy and the world must fear you will turn on them if they get in the way. Upon the cessation of fighting, one must place into power competent people and enforce the rules of a modern government. This was not done in either Afghanistan or Iraq in our desire to quickly turn the countries back over to native rulers. We allowed corruption to bloom without interruption. Same shit different day.
The other option which would work also is to destroy everything then leave. As the vacuum is filled with more tyrants and radicals, simple destroy again and again until the fight is gone.
This will not radicalize more Jihadists as some persist in claiming. The strong horse will prevail. Right now the west is seen as the weak horse. While on a purely military power level this may not be true, from a psychological perspective it is completely true. This must change.
It is not humane to allow wars to continue indefinitely. The suffering by the innocent is always much more.
Chapter XVII, The Prince
“Upon this, a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? One should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it is much safer to be feared than loved.”
“In general, men are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, dissimulating, hungry for profit and quick to evade danger.”
“As long as you succeed and do them good, they are devoted to you entirely; they will offer you their blood, property, life and children… but only when danger is far distant; when danger approaches they turn against you.”
“A prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared while he is not hated, which will always be as long as he abstains from despoiling the property of his citizens, and from their women.”