Must-read: The airstrike that (sort of) wasn’t

posted at 4:22 pm on August 27, 2006 by Allahpundit

All the way to the end, please, or else you’ll miss the devastating conclusion. The last line in particular is a killer, especially if you watched the video of the Centanni/Wiig “conversion” this morning.

Related: the first step is admitting the problem.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Decisions, decisions. What’s an honest nation to do?

THeDRiFTeR on August 27, 2006 at 4:35 PM

Words to live by:

“We blew it. You either attack or you don’t.”

As for the second piece, I’d like to draw huge bugged out eyes, but I don’t know how.

Pablo on August 27, 2006 at 4:41 PM

Forgive me for thinking that they start from the premise that they’re victims and life is unfair, and then seek out evidence to back that up.

Allahpundit on August 26, 2006 at 9:02 PM

The occupation – wise men and commentators will say – is responsible. I am not defending the occupation, but I want to stop at our mistakes, which we are accustomed to blame on others.”

Winds of change? (all emphasis mine)

THeDRiFTeR on August 27, 2006 at 4:58 PM

Wow. That was an incredibly powerful article. Required reading. Thanks Allah

Number 2 on August 27, 2006 at 5:43 PM

I have felt for a long time that the approach to Islamic terrorism is wrong. This Washington Post article is an example of it. The Hamas leadership isn’t grateful that Israel “pulled their punch” — they’re gleeful they survived, and they have “prospered” since, to the detriment of the Israelis.

We (the west) are now “trapped in amber,” unable to use our full military power to put down an assault on Western civilizaton by Jihadists of all stripes for fear of upsetting “world opinion.” Make no mistake about it, but we are in a war of survival.

Israel is just a microcosm. If you think that the recent war was only about the Jews and their “illegal occupation of Palestine,” you’re a fool. They won’t stop with Israel. They, the jihadists, won’t stop with Andalusia. They really, really, want the entire world.

In the last few days, I’ve solidified my thoughts on what to do about the Islamist Jihadists, including the “Palestinian Problem.”

I’ve come to the conclusion that the way to fight terrorism is to use counter-terrorism.

No. I don’t mean “using the intelligence capabilities of the police and the military forces of the United States to track down terrorists and other enemies.”

I mean implementation of the old Roman method of dealing with terrorism: “punitive raids”

Whenever “barbarian” cross-border raids exceeded the “nuisance” level, the Roman legions would cross over the border and burn out enough villages, take enough women and children for slaves, and kill enough men to get the point across — “leave us alone or you will all die.”

Want to make headway with the 7th Century mindset of Islam? Give them a dose of 7th Century “politics” — extract reprisals in such numbers as to horrify the rest into leaving us alone. After all, this is EXACTLY what they are trying to do to us, using concepts that come right from the 7th Century.

And lest you think I’m being too harsh, consider what the Koran says about how Islam should deal with us:

“Strike off their [infidel's] heads. Strike off their finger-tips! . because they defied God and his Apostle [Muhammad].” (Sura 8:12-13)

“Make war on them [infidels] until idolatry shall cease and God’s religion shall reign supreme.” (Sura 2:193)

“Seize them and put them to death wherever you find them.” (Sura 4:89)

“Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you.” (Sura 9:123)

“When the sacred months [Ramadan] are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them; besiege them; and lie in ambush everywhere for them.
If they repent [convert to Islam] and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way.” (Sura 9:5)

Islamists (and note, I do not indict all muslims) think nothing of murdering innocent people who have nothing to do with the reason for their anger, because they operate with a 7th Century mindset.

“Honor killings” of their women and daughters, as part of a pathologically sick male dominated society, are an example.

The “tribal” substructure of their society is another.

So is the “call to Jihad” and glorification of their martyrs.

The Palestinian intention to commit genocide against the citizens of Israel is just one more example of this.

And, if you dare to offend a jihadi believer in the “religion of peace” their first response is to KILL YOU! Witness the “cartoon” jihad.

The problem is that nobody in the west has the balls to tell the Muslim world (1) this is no longer the 7th Century, and (2) they had better behave themselves, or else.

Instead, we pussyfoot around using 21st Century methods of civilized engagement in the vain hope that reason and diplomacy can achieve a sensible result with people whose mindset is back in the 7th Century. We forget that the 7th Century way of resolving issues resulted in bloody swords and heads rolling in the dust.

Do not misunderstand me. Much of the muslim world is part of the 21st Century and wants a peaceful solution to their differences with us. But enough of them are still living in the 7th Century to endanger us all, especially if a Jihadist state like Iran obtains nuclear weapons.

We need to tell the Islamic world that unless *THEY* control their 7th Century mindset, unenlightened, intolerant jihadists, that they will face new “Roman Legions” — armed with nuclear weapons and the willingness embark on “punative raids” of a scale never before seen. They need to be told that the clock is ticking down on the survival of THEIR civilization and culture, unless THEY solve the problem of THEIR jihadists.

Yes. I know. Too much red meat yesterday.

georgej on August 27, 2006 at 6:11 PM

The Hamas leadership isn’t grateful that Israel “pulled their punch” — they’re gleeful they survived, and they have “prospered” since, to the detriment of the Israelis.

georgej on August 27, 2006 at 6:11 PM

You are Exactly Right, George.

Lawrence on August 27, 2006 at 6:25 PM

I’ve been thinking this for awhile as well Georgej….

Take Iran…. lets take about 4 armored divisions, and drive to the nearest nuke plants, laying waste to everything in the way…. and destroy those plants…

Then go back.

No occupation… just take care of the problem and leave.

Ulyseus Grant said somthing like the Slavish following of the rules of war will loose you the war (or somthing like that)….

Sherman’s march to the sea is a good example of a semimodern version of what I’m talking about… don’t purposefully kill civilians, but if they don’t leave the structures to be destoyed??? oh well….

WE have civilized war and made it too easy for countries to thumb their collective noses at us…

Romeo13 on August 27, 2006 at 7:11 PM

Romeo , I dont agree with the 4 armored divisions.

Our Navy and Air Force can do in a day or two what needs to be done.
They can do it before anyone wakes up.
Warn em, tell em when it’s coming , and DO IT! Not nuclear, but get it done. The world has forgotten. Look at pathetic France, now they hate us.

shooter on August 27, 2006 at 7:49 PM

From Old War
Dogs >> "Them," or "us?"

When I saw the link to this a little after midnight this morning I assumed it was just another al-WaPo pablum piece and didn’t bother reading it. Thank you Allahpundit for pointing out my error: In Israel, a Divisive Struggle Over Targeted Killing. Read it. All of it. Before clicking the "Continue reading …" link. Give it some thought and then please do click the link.————————-The article raises a very important issue: How many innocent "them" is it acceptable to kill or maim to protect "us?" For me the calculus is easy. …

I know you’re pretty tolerant, but I’m not sure the rest of that paragraph would be allowed to remain on your site. Rather than risk it I’ll just say "click here. My comments are open."

bdfaith on August 27, 2006 at 7:52 PM

It is also, arguably, the most morally complicated.

Killing your enemies, who are in the process of planning to kill you, is morally complicated? Only for the nitwits who write for the Washington Post.

Moral of the story, drop the goddamn one ton bomb and get the job done right the first time.

Lehuster on August 27, 2006 at 9:29 PM

I don’t know about the ultimate decision about this bombing, but I have to say I’m glad the Israelis are debating the morality of it. I actually thought the article was surprisingly positive, making them look like good guys.

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on August 27, 2006 at 10:08 PM

Killing your enemies, who are in the process of planning to kill you, is morally complicated? Only for the nitwits who write for the Washington Post.

It seemed it was pretty difficult for some of the Israeli’s to come to grips with.

EFG on August 27, 2006 at 10:10 PM

Perhaps military people know the answer to this one. The Russians attempted to pacify Grozny using good old fashioned massive bombardments, innocents be damned.
Has it worked? We don’t hear much about the place nowadays, so I assume it has.

dhimwit on August 28, 2006 at 9:37 AM

Technology and skill without willpower, vs. will power with almost nothing else.

No contest = will power wins every time.

Jaibones on August 28, 2006 at 10:58 AM

I can’t imagine having to make those rules, or come up with the math. But I can even less imagine making it work.

And that last line. How they’d laugh if they knew the truth (which the ones who’re still alive now do, I suppose). Grrr.

Tanya on August 28, 2006 at 12:09 PM

Want to make headway with the 7th Century mindset of Islam? Give them a dose of 7th Century “politics” — extract reprisals in such numbers as to horrify the rest into leaving us alone. After all, this is EXACTLY what they are trying to do to us, using concepts that come right from the 7th Century.

Islamists (and note, I do not indict all muslims) think nothing of murdering innocent people who have nothing to do with the reason for their anger, because they operate with a 7th Century mindset.

“Honor killings” of their women and daughters, as part of a pathologically sick male dominated society, are an example.

See the problem? You yourself admit “they” are not horrified by mass murder. I think the current philosophy of attacking the head of the snake is the best, because frankly I am horrified by the slaughter of innocents, and I like being able to sleep at night.

B Moe on August 28, 2006 at 12:37 PM

I think the current philosophy of attacking the head of the snake is the best, because frankly I am horrified by the slaughter of innocents, and I like being able to sleep at night.

You seem to be under the illusion that the determination of whether or not innocents will be slaughtered in war is some kind of choice. It is not, and only those who can see that without being blinded by the moral calculus (as well-intentioned as it may be) are capable of winning wars.

Ultimately, you’ll sleep better at night if you accept this reality, ugly as it may be. For if we in the west do not figure this out eventually and re-learn to take the actions necessary to actually win wars, then we will be the innocents in danger of being slaughters. Sleep well with that thought hanging over your head.

thirteen28 on August 28, 2006 at 2:00 PM

slaugtered, not slaughters … damn, can we get an edit function please? argh …

thirteen28 on August 28, 2006 at 2:01 PM

You seem to be under the illusion that the determination of whether or not innocents will be slaughtered in war is some kind of choice.

I am unaware of any weapon currently in our arsenal that doesn’t have a targeting system. I do not support the targeting of innocent civilians as it seemed to me georgej was advocating. If you are targeting the enemy and some civilians get hit by accident, that sucks but it is unavoidable. I think the Israelis should have levelled the house in the linked story. But I don’t think we or anyone else is justified in massive, indiscriminate retaliatory attacks on innocent targets.

An eye for an eye means nothing to blind idiots.

B Moe on August 28, 2006 at 5:06 PM

But I don’t think we or anyone else is justified in massive, indiscriminate retaliatory attacks on innocent targets.

Were our bombings of Germany and Japan in WWII justified?

Could we have won without them?

Simple yes or no answers will do.

thirteen28 on August 28, 2006 at 8:09 PM

Is it 2006 or 1946?

Are we still using B-52s and carpet bombing?

Would we have wasted as much ammunition in WWII if we had GPS and laser guiding systems?

We fought that way then because we had no choice, we don’t have to fight that way now.

B Moe on August 28, 2006 at 8:46 PM

In other words, you can’t give a simple yes or no.

Are we still using B-52s and carpet bombing?

No – but we should be.

Would we have wasted as much ammunition in WWII if we had GPS and laser guiding systems?

I reject your premise that the ammunition was “wasted”, considering that the will of the Germans and Japanese to fight was completely and irrevocably shattered. I’d say it was ammunition well spent.

We fought that way then because we had no choice, we don’t have to fight that way now.

If we continue to fight the way we are now, we will soon have no choices on how to continue fighting.

Is it 2006 or 1946?

It matters not whether it’s 2006, 1946, or 106 BC – despite new weapons and technology, the principle for winning wars has not changed. You win when your enemy fears the consequences of resistance more than they fear the consequences of surrender. Until we show the will to put that fear into our ememies, no matter what it take to do so, the war with islamic facism will continue on and continue to claim the innocent lives you are so intent on protecting.

thirteen28 on August 29, 2006 at 12:59 PM