January 14, 2015

War in the Absence of Strategic Clarity By: Mark Helprin Posted: September 17, 2003

True in 2003. Even more true today....

The enemy must and can be defined. That he is the terrorist himself almost everyone agrees, but in the same way that the United States extended blame beyond the pilots who attacked Pearl Harbor, it must now reach far back into the structures of enablement for the sake of deciding who and what must be fought. And given the enormity of a war against civilians, and the attacks upon our warships, embassies, economy, capital, government, and most populous city, this determination must be liberal and free-flowing rather than cautious and constrained, both by necessity and by right. The enemy has embarked upon a particular form of warfare with the intent of shielding his center of mass from counterattack, but he must not be allowed such a baseless privilege. For as much as he is the terrorist who executes the strategy, he is the intelligence service in aid of it, the nation that harbors his training camps, the country that finances him, the press filled with adulation, the people who dance in the streets when there is a slaughter, and the regime that turns a blind eye.
Not surprisingly, militant Islam arises from and makes its base in the Arab Middle East. The first objective of the war, therefore, must be to offer every state in the area this choice: eradicate all support for terrorism within your borders or forfeit existence as a state. That individual terrorists will subsequently flee to the periphery is certain, but the first step must be to deny them their heartland and their citadels.
An excerpt from War in the Absence of Strategic Clarity

Posted by gerardvanderleun at January 14, 2015 3:52 PM
Bookmark and Share



"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." -- Karl Popper N.B.: Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately. Comments that exceed the obscenity or stupidity limits will be either edited or expunged.

Also true today. The last paragraph of the essay:

"But the country did not rise to the occasion, and our enemies know that we fought them on the cheap. They know that we did not, would not, and will not tolerate the disruption of our normal way of life. They know that they did not seize our full attention. They know that we have hardly stirred. And as long as they have these things to know, they will neither stand down nor shrink back, and, for us, the sorrows that will come will be greater than the sorrows that have been."

13 years five months and counting. Is this the modern 30 Years War? Well, religious wars do tend to run long, why would this one be any different?

Posted by: Jimmy J. at January 14, 2015 4:38 PM

The enemy was defined and neutralized before by America. Then, Americans rebuilt what we were forced to destroy. At that time, they were called Japanese Kamikazis. Today, they strap homicide vests on the backs of little kids while they hide in caves and have man-sex with goats.

I say nuke them all, but leave them in a sea of molten Arab sand, with no Marshall Plan to help them out afterward.


Posted by: Jersey Jehu at January 14, 2015 10:39 PM

The only solution for the Muslim threat is to kill every last one of them, their families, their friends, their neighbors;
to lay waste to their crop lands and salt their wells, to destroy their buildings such that no two stones lay atop one another.

The remedy to the damage and destruction, the murder most foul and the barbaric actions of Muslims
can only be met with a force strong enough to overcome once and for all that which threatens all others.
Death sudden, overwhelming, final, no hesitation, and thorough by whatever means will accomplish the end result — elimination of the Evil.

Posted by: chasmatic at January 15, 2015 8:59 PM