Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Iran Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Time to End Totalitarian Islam
sofa    3/25/2007 3:10:27 PM
This article is from TOS Vol. 1, No. 4. "http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-winter/no-substitute-for-victory.asp" http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-winter/no-substitute-for-victory.asp “No Substitute for Victory” The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism John Lewis Author’s note: This article was adapted from a lecture I presented at the Ayn Rand Institute’s OCON conference “The Jihad Against the West,” in Boston, MA, on October 21, 2006. The Greek historian Thucydides, writing about the calamitous war that had destroyed his own world, made an important observation about the causes of historical events: Even though circumstances may change, human nature remains the same; and certain human elements—especially moral and psychological factors—are at the root of all wars. We can disagree with Thucydides about the identity of those factors, and reject his pessimistic view of human nature, but we will benefit from accepting his challenge to rise above particular circumstances and focus on the principles of human action that are common to all time. Differences in technology, politics, or economics will always remain secondary to the ideas that motivate aggressors to launch bloody attacks and that empower—or restrain—defenders opposing those attacks. In that spirit, let us begin by considering an event of cataclysmic proportions, a deadly attack against Americans, and then examine two possible responses to it. This approach will show us that the crisis we face today—a series of highly motivated attacks against the heart of civilization—is not unique, can be understood, and can be ended—if we choose to understand and end it. The attack under consideration kills thousands of Americans. Foreign governments, well known to us, have sponsored such attacks for years in their pursuit of a continental-scale totalitarian empire. The fire motivating the slaughter is a militaristic, religious-political ideology that values war as a demonstration of loyalty to a deity, demands obedience to its spokesmen, and imposes its edicts over millions of people. Thousands of individuals, indoctrinated as youths, are eager to engage in suicide attacks, and many more are willing to die through acquiescence and submission, should the state so demand. The enemy soldier is highly motivated, thoroughly brainwashed, and willing to die for his god and his cause. The enemy’s children and soldiers memorize words such as these: The battlefield is where our army displays its true character, conquering whenever it attacks, winning whenever it engages in combat, in order to spread our deity’s reign far and wide, so that the enemy may look up in awe to his august virtues.1 They accept, as moral imperatives, ideas such as these: [F]ight and slay the unbelievers wherever you find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war; but if they repent, and practice our way, then accept them. . . . You shall fight back against those who do not believe in God, nor in the Last Day, nor do they prohibit what God and His messenger have prohibited, nor do they abide by the religion of truth.2 Millions of people embrace such injunctions as unquestioned commandments. Their suicidal attacks continue for years. How should Americans respond to this attack? Under the pressures of a deadly emergency, American leaders must make important decisions, and the American people must decide whether they will support those decisions. Let us consider and evaluate two options, and ask which we should use. To set course for one possible response, the President addresses the American people, and identifies the enemy nations involved. He asks for, and receives, a formal declaration of war from Congress. He pledges to achieve victory as quickly as possible, a goal which he defines as the unconditional surrender of the enemy regimes, and a fundamental repudiation of war by those involved. Americans mount a vigorous offense against the center of the enemy’s power. Waves of bombers obliterate dozens of enemy cities. His food is choked off, his military is decimated, his industry is bombarded, his ships are sunk, his harbors are mined—his people are psychologically shattered. In a single night, a hundred thousand civilians die in a firestorm in his capital. Americans drop leaflets telling the enemy population which cities could be next. Civilians are immersed in propaganda from their government, telling them that they are winning the war—yet they cower defenselessly while American bombers level their homes. One of our generals announces his personal goal: to “kill the bastards.” We name our final drive against the enemy, “Operation Downfall.” A force of overpowering magnitude amasses on the enemy’s borders, as thousands of American bombers pulverize his cities. The President and two foreign allies issue an ultimatum that includes these words: The full application of our military power,
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
scuttlebut steve    911 isnt pearl harbor, fool   3/25/2007 6:01:58 PM
so you are saying that america needs to declare war on virtually all islamic governments in the world, which effectively will result in being at war with virtually all islamic people in the world because of 19 terrorists with boxcutters and steak knives?  that is the proper response to 911 is effectively genocide on a billion people?
 
BTW, who the fu## are you to say what the moral responsibility of every american is?
 
Quote    Reply

reefdiver       3/25/2007 6:44:11 PM

so you are saying that america needs to declare war on virtually all islamic governments in the world, which effectively will result in being at war with virtually all islamic people in the world because of 19 terrorists with boxcutters and steak knives?  that is the proper response to 911 is effectively genocide on a billion people?

 

BTW, who the fu## are you to say what the moral responsibility of every american is?


I don't think you could claim either John Lewis, who wrote the article, or Sofa advocate genocide of a bunch of Islamic states. Has the US comitted genocide in Iraq?  Mr. Lewis in definitely not advocating dropping atomic bombs on Iran. Just how many totalitarian, terrorist supporting, Islamic states that pose a major threat to the free world are there? Please tell me.
 
John Lewis is a historian.  He's making conclusions based on history. The same conclusions have been reached by many. Doesn't the old "those who cannot remember the past are condemned..." come to mind?
 
Iran is a nation that demands to be taken seriously to be believed that it will seriously negotiate in good faith and can be trusted with unlimited nuclear technology.  Unfortunately, if we believe Iran and take them seriously, then we must also believe we face an Iran that intends to destroy Israel and cripple the US.  If we take Iran seriously we must realize that it is Iran - not the US - that has every intention for genocide - especially that of Israel.  And yet people are still more concerned about the future of Iran than that of Israel.  The west faces an Iran that is determined to do nothing but increase militarily until it can destroy Israel as well as effectively control the life's blood of the world's economy - all the oil of the Middle East. It doesn't take a mathematician to compute that the cost of controlling this country will only get higher in the future.
 
There are good arguments for not attacking Iran. There are good arguments for attacking Iran, taking out their nuke facilities, eliminating their military capabilities, and keeping them that way for a decade for so. Nonetheless no one (not even Israel) is calling for the genocide of Islamic nations - either Iran or others.
 
Quote    Reply

sofa       3/25/2007 8:46:56 PM
Steve -
How do you assess the current threat?
I don't believe it's 19 guys with steak knives, as you suggest.
 
 
Quote    Reply

sofa       3/25/2007 9:18:34 PM


Nonetheless no one (not even Israel) is calling for the genocide of Islamic nations - either Iran or others.

And yet... Iran and the Ayatollahs have been calling for genocide for years - since the 1970's. Their brand of facism raised a generation, and was exported throughout the middle east via funding, training, planning, intel, and support for terror operations in Syria and Lebanon and Israel and Iraq.
 
Pay attention to what Iranian officials and Ayatollahs say.
They take their words very seriously.
We should too.
 
Steve - Where is your outrage for Iran?  
 
 
Quote    Reply

xylene       3/25/2007 9:53:49 PM
We are not fairing too well in Iraq either. Has Iraq hurt Al Qeada and fundamentalist Islam more or us more? Well I think it has hurt them more than us, but it has cost us alot. If another Islamic nation thinks we are going to come in and turn them into what Iraq is now, we'll have not only the funadmentalist, but also the secularist and athiest  in that nation to fight too. Iraq has cost us maybe half a trillion dollars...how many more of those can we do? Bin Laden said to his minions they should target our economy. That is what they are doing and Bush and his blind supporters are going for it. We don't have unlimited funds.
 
Compare the dollar to other currencies since the GWOT began. The debt and the overspending is taking a toll on the value of the dollar.
 
Quote    Reply

scuttlebut steve       3/25/2007 10:18:15 PM





Nonetheless no one (not even Israel) is calling for the genocide of Islamic nations - either Iran or others.



And yet... Iran and the Ayatollahs have been calling for genocide for years - since the 1970's. Their brand of facism raised a generation, and was exported throughout the middle east via funding, training, planning, intel, and support for terror operations in Syria and Lebanon and Israel and Iraq.

 


Pay attention to what Iranian officials and Ayatollahs say.

They take their words very seriously.

We should too.

 


Steve - Where is your outrage for Iran?  

 

I have plenty of outrage for iran, but i dont advocate making it america's personal resposibility to oust every islamic authoritarian government in the middle east, no matter how backwards they are.  The GWOT is just that, and it isnt called the war on islam (and im not trying to stick up for them, in fact i think that it is by far the most violently backward major religion in the world), and if we try to make it our moral objective to bring democracy, liberty, and seperation of church and state to these people by force then we will be in for some hard knocks. 
 
Quote    Reply

reefdiver       3/25/2007 11:03:29 PM


I have plenty of outrage for iran, but i dont advocate making it america's personal resposibility to oust every islamic authoritarian government in the middle east, no matter how backwards they are.  The GWOT is just that, and it isnt called the war on islam (and im not trying to stick up for them, in fact i think that it is by far the most violently backward major religion in the world), and if we try to make it our moral objective to bring democracy, liberty, and seperation of church and state to these people by force then we will be in for some hard knocks. 

If the US goes to war with Iran (and I'm doubting it will) - it won't be about bringing democracy, liberty or separation of church and state to Iran. It will simply be about destroying their ability to control the Middle East using their military might. It will be about destroying their nuclear ambitions. And then destroying it again and again if necessary. It might be about decimating their economy as well just as they plan to destroy's that of the US. But doubtless it will oddly be because someone in the US will finally have taken the Iranians at their word - and said "s*it! - they actually mean what they say and want to kill us. Maybe we should take away some of their weapons".  Will it accomplish anything other than having them send terrorists around the world? Will it ruin the worlds economies? Heck if I know. But at least Irans mullahs will have to spend most of their money reconstructing their economy rather that on terrorism. If they don't - well, you can only starve your people for so long before they'll turn on you. It will certainly mess up their military strength for a while (until the friendly Russians re-supply them), and stunt their nuclear ambitions for a considerable time.
 
Quote    Reply

GreyJackal       3/25/2007 11:55:13 PM
The Iranian leadership is a basket-case no doubt, but unlike many countries in the region the average Iranian isn't so anti-american as one might think. Most of their population is young. Nevertheless there is that highly vocal minority that love chanting "death to America" every friday after prayer. I don't know if bombing Iran might be the answer to this at all, but we can't let that mullah leadership aquire nukes.
 
Why is no one really playing closer attention to Saudi Arabia. They are the silent assassin, they practice wahabbi Islam that breeds hate for the west at every opporturnity. The Taliban were created when Wahabbi Islam came over and influenced Afghanistan in the 1980's during the Soviet-Afghan war. Wahabbi Islam fused with backward Pashtun tribes to give birth to the Taliban who sheltered Al-Queda who carried out the 9/11 attacks. Bin Laden is a Saudi and 14 out of the 19 hijackers in 9/11 were Saudis. Hello??? Anyone connecting the dots here?  The Saudis have pleanty of surplus oil money(tens of billions of dollars) and a fair chunk of it ends up financing terrorists. Why isn't the US applying more pressure on Saudi Arabia? Don't tell me itrs because of oil.
 
Its seems that no one ever gets pissed off at Saudi Arabia.
 
Quote    Reply

scuttlebut steve       3/26/2007 6:59:16 AM
look, im not saying that we shouldnt kick iran's ass [ i think that they should have a several day ultimatum to release the british soldiers they have kidnapped or face the destruction of their entire navy and air force (so they will have to buy new ones from france, hey frenchies, possible rafale customer coming right up! ), and if they still dont give in, then the selected targeting of oil facilities and other vital economic targets.  and if they try to retaliate against us/uk forces in iraq or afganistan then bomb them back to the stone age.]
 
the vibe i got from the original posting was that america should overthrow almost every middle eastern government simply because they are based on an authoritarian muslim theocracy and institute new government forms all over the middle east by force.  maybe i misunderstood the meaning of the thread.
 
Quote    Reply

sofa       3/28/2007 10:56:29 PM
... "and those who support them" - Sure sounds like Iran and portions of royal family of Saudi Arabia.
All the money trails follow back to them.
 
They use Totalitarian Islam to further their agenda, and terror as a tool.
They also want nukes in their toolbox.
 
If we let them get that far, then I believe they will use them, and we must retaliate, and 100 million will die because no one had the guts to do something sooner.
 
Now is sooner.
But it's getting later.
 
 
"Let's Roll"
 
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics