The Foundation of Asymmetric Policy Is Self-Defense
We have not yet ended the beginning. The mid-point is years away.
Yesterday’s friend may not be today’s ally. We must judge our friends based upon past performances, today’s actions and tomorrow’s expectations.
On 9/11/01 you were drafted into war. You have no choice — you’re in. You may support retaliation. Or, you may be against protecting yourself from further attacks even after having been surprised on 9/11, and threatened frequently since. We are living through World War III regardless of your perception. Regardless of your politics, the fact is that this war must be won. Western Civilization must prevail Loss will result in the start of another next Dark Age.
The question is, are we going to win it soon or are we going to fail to effectively retaliate making it a long, costly war?
To see an impending danger and not defend your nation is to be a coward. To enhance an impending danger by vocally declaring it a JV team, is to be a traitor. To see an impending danger and defend your nation anyway is to be honored.
On The Retaliation On The War Against Terrorism
Headlines state, “Diplomatic Failure,” and even go so far as to specifically name nations, organizations, and individual failures. Pundits and commentators, overly empowered by this Age of Information, repeat that the War Against Terrorism’s Iraqi Front was provoked by a failure in diplomatic negotiations.
To believe that any specific diplomatic effort failed and that specifically because of that failure a new war front was established, indicates a mistaken and incomplete perspective. There are pundits who believe that efforts by all parties including the 1991 coalition, the UN, the Arab League, today’s coalition, and President Bush’s work to disarm Hussein’s regime are diplomatic failures. That mistaken perspective masks the higher-level facts that actually motivate massive changes.
To believe that over a decade of efforts by so many nations’ military and diplomats on so many fronts have failed, is to implicitly believe that all diplomatic efforts will eventually succeed given enough time no matter what nations and what type of leaderships are involved in the diplomatic negotiations.
The practical points include, “How much time can be allowed? How reasonable is each involved party? How long can diplomatic negotiators ignore and disregard macro and micro ramifications of non-action? Will more negotiations change the performance of antagonists? Will more time ameliorate the reasonable demands of the protagonists? Will a reasonable amount of time correct past and current damages and result in significantly better conditions?
Certainly, when these questions are answered as they have been regarding Hussein’s Iraqi regime’s performance over his last decades, then yes, diplomacy had failed. It failed due to the intransigence of Hussein’s Iraqi regime. It failed because Hussein-like regimes do not act according to reasonable civilized norms.
There comes a time in the course of civilized diplomatic negotiations when even diplomats need to admit that a situation — for example, one involving a despotic, megalomaniac dictator, intent upon massive domination with no regard for human life or personal liberties — actually requires pursuit on another level.
Sometimes that next level includes the use of force. This is the case in today’s War Against Terrorism. Use of the next level of negotiations to force surrender of despots and weapons of mass killing was appropriately initiated by the USA on March 17, 2003.
How effectively the War Against Terrorism is executed will identify whether or not we are able to handle World War III or an eruption of extremist activism empowered by technology. How effectively it is fought to successful completion will identify Western Civilzation’s strength of character.