9-11, Eleven Years Later - The Next Steps
Eleven years ago, the forces of Islamofascism committed a monstrous crime against America and against all humanity. They made prisoner the civilian crews and passengers of four airliners and then murdered all their prisoners, in the course of an attack which brought down a civilian target -- the World Trade Center -- and slighly damaged one military one -- the Pentagon.
For this crime I have long argued that the Terrorists, deserve "9-11 Quarter," which is to say no mercy and no rights whether as war prisoners or civilian internees. They may, as far as I am concerned, be killed attempting to surrender or tortured or executed after surrender, at our whim: they have earned no better treatment under either the lex talonis or the Geneva Convention, as they are non-uniformed combatants not fighting on behalf of a recognized Power or faction. Nations which side with them deserve war and defeat, though we should treat their combatants and leaders with more respect (not shrinking, however, from punishing them for war crimes).
Under President George W. Bush, the pro-Terrorist regimes of Afghanistan and Iraq have been unseated, many Terrorists and pro-Terrorists killed, and many leaders killed, made prisoner, or executed. Under President Barack H. Obama, the war was extended into the parts of Pakistan under Al Qaeda control, Osama bin Laden was slain, and Pakistan revealed herself, by her own behavior, to actually be on the side of the Terrorists.
Obama imagines that he can declare victory and go home. If he does this, then the Taliban and Al Qaeda will simply return to Afghanistan from Northwest Pakistan, take ovefr Afghanistan again, and the war will re-start with some new Terrorist atrocity against Americans on American soil. While the punishment suffered by Afghanistan by being fought over again and again and again would be exemplary, this is an inefficient way of fighting and winning a war.
The clear next step is the reduction of Pakistan. This is something we will have to do eventually in any case, and should do sooner rather than later, as Pakistan is a nuclear power of growing strength, and the more time we wait the more time the Pakistanis will have to emplace nuclear weapons on our own soil.
The obvious means of accomplishing the reduction of Pakistan is through an alliance with India and the encouragement of the pro-war factions in India. Pakistani behavior is clearly insane and aggressive enough that they would furnish an Indo-American alliance with ample excuses to justify an allied strike.
In such a war the division of labor would also be obvious. American forces would knock out the Pakistani nuclear forces and then proceed to destroy all Pakistani air and naval forces; US forces would probably mount a secondary ground invasion to keep the Pakistanis occupied in the west (and kill Al Qaeda and Taliban forces), while the Indian Army would conduct the main ground invasion.
The aim should be either the annexation of Pakistan by India, or at least the creation of an Indian mandate to occupy and administer a people who have shown by their behavior that they are incapable of being trusted with their own government. This would gain India's long-term security, eliminate a major threat to American interests and world peace, and demonstrate to Islam "No, Islamist regimes will not be permitted to survive with the Bomb."
We will of course do no such thing under Obama. We probably won't under Romney, either. Instead, it seems most likely that we will declare victory and go home -- and then will come a Terrorist atrocity worse than 9-11 (possibly involving a nuclear attack on the American homeland).
And then we will fight the war anyway. Only with more casualties on our side, and far more casualties on the side of the enemy.
And the weird thing is that the policy I just advocated would be viewed by most as aggressive and inhumane, even though it will kill only hundreds of thousands, while the course of events which will otherwise come to pass will come to kill millions to tens of millions.
(Indeed, since we are looking to be unwilling to restrain Iran as well, the death toll might amount to over a hundred million. Mostly of them rather than us, but it's still sad).
Human nature can be strange, and the grip of the Strauss-Howe cycles seems to be one of iron.
For this crime I have long argued that the Terrorists, deserve "9-11 Quarter," which is to say no mercy and no rights whether as war prisoners or civilian internees. They may, as far as I am concerned, be killed attempting to surrender or tortured or executed after surrender, at our whim: they have earned no better treatment under either the lex talonis or the Geneva Convention, as they are non-uniformed combatants not fighting on behalf of a recognized Power or faction. Nations which side with them deserve war and defeat, though we should treat their combatants and leaders with more respect (not shrinking, however, from punishing them for war crimes).
Under President George W. Bush, the pro-Terrorist regimes of Afghanistan and Iraq have been unseated, many Terrorists and pro-Terrorists killed, and many leaders killed, made prisoner, or executed. Under President Barack H. Obama, the war was extended into the parts of Pakistan under Al Qaeda control, Osama bin Laden was slain, and Pakistan revealed herself, by her own behavior, to actually be on the side of the Terrorists.
Obama imagines that he can declare victory and go home. If he does this, then the Taliban and Al Qaeda will simply return to Afghanistan from Northwest Pakistan, take ovefr Afghanistan again, and the war will re-start with some new Terrorist atrocity against Americans on American soil. While the punishment suffered by Afghanistan by being fought over again and again and again would be exemplary, this is an inefficient way of fighting and winning a war.
The clear next step is the reduction of Pakistan. This is something we will have to do eventually in any case, and should do sooner rather than later, as Pakistan is a nuclear power of growing strength, and the more time we wait the more time the Pakistanis will have to emplace nuclear weapons on our own soil.
The obvious means of accomplishing the reduction of Pakistan is through an alliance with India and the encouragement of the pro-war factions in India. Pakistani behavior is clearly insane and aggressive enough that they would furnish an Indo-American alliance with ample excuses to justify an allied strike.
In such a war the division of labor would also be obvious. American forces would knock out the Pakistani nuclear forces and then proceed to destroy all Pakistani air and naval forces; US forces would probably mount a secondary ground invasion to keep the Pakistanis occupied in the west (and kill Al Qaeda and Taliban forces), while the Indian Army would conduct the main ground invasion.
The aim should be either the annexation of Pakistan by India, or at least the creation of an Indian mandate to occupy and administer a people who have shown by their behavior that they are incapable of being trusted with their own government. This would gain India's long-term security, eliminate a major threat to American interests and world peace, and demonstrate to Islam "No, Islamist regimes will not be permitted to survive with the Bomb."
We will of course do no such thing under Obama. We probably won't under Romney, either. Instead, it seems most likely that we will declare victory and go home -- and then will come a Terrorist atrocity worse than 9-11 (possibly involving a nuclear attack on the American homeland).
And then we will fight the war anyway. Only with more casualties on our side, and far more casualties on the side of the enemy.
And the weird thing is that the policy I just advocated would be viewed by most as aggressive and inhumane, even though it will kill only hundreds of thousands, while the course of events which will otherwise come to pass will come to kill millions to tens of millions.
(Indeed, since we are looking to be unwilling to restrain Iran as well, the death toll might amount to over a hundred million. Mostly of them rather than us, but it's still sad).
Human nature can be strange, and the grip of the Strauss-Howe cycles seems to be one of iron.