Afraid to Kill

[Warrior-Mentor]

Afraid to Kill
RALPH PETERS
November 24, 2009

It's not true that the only good terrorist is a dead terrorist. Even dead terrorists aren't good. But at least they're dead.

And that helps.

But political correctness has possessed Washington. It's so bad that even Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who's done a great job in many other respects, parrots the cliché that "we can't kill our way out of this."

Well, folks, there's no other way out of this all-or-nothing struggle with fanatics. Three thousand years of history teach that there's no alternative -- none -- to killing fanatics in large numbers when your enemies are ablaze with religious zeal.

What Gates and countless others really mean is that we're unwilling to kill our way out of this assault on our civilization. So the terrorists keep on killing us.

We tell ourselves that one more charm offensive, one more inept aid program, one more surge of troops who aren't allowed to fight will persuade terrorists on a murderous mission from their god to lay down their arms and run for alderman.

We refuse to see the world through terrorist eyes. Instead, we superimpose liberal-arts-faculty values on bloodthirsty zealots, asking what we've done to make them so angry.

The result?

We grant captured terrorists more rights and better treatment than nonviolent offenders in a US county jail. We cater to them at the gentrified prison at Guantanamo (yet the global media insist that Gitmo's just a big torture chamber).

We tell ourselves we'll impress our enemies with our humanitarianism. But how many Gitmo prisoners have turned pacifist or expressed regrets? If you were convinced that you were doing God's will, would you be budged by a captor who gives you priority health care, a religiously correct diet, special worship privileges and free legal counsel? Allah has made his enemies weak . . .

The laws of war provide for the battlefield execution of illegal combatants -- those who refuse to wear uniforms or identifying insignia or who commit atrocities. Instead, we give them flu shots before American citizens can get them.

When a madcap ideologue such as Attorney General Eric Holder tells Congress we mustn't be afraid to try terrorists in our judicial system, he gets it exactly wrong. The terrorists believe we're afraid to kill them. And they're right.

So we'll get the upcoming propaganda bonanza of the trial of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his terrorist barbershop quartet. And we'll squander hundreds of millions of dollars on special security precautions in Manhattan. The inevitable outcome? We'll make heroes of the terrorists throughout the Muslim world.

Meanwhile, down in Texas, terrorist assassin Maj. Nidal Hasan's lawyer is already making a mockery of our judicial system. Hasan will become a terrorist icon, too.

And even if Hasan, KSM and the boys are all convicted of multiple counts of premeditated murder, they won't be executed for many years to come -- if ever.

How does this deter fanatical enemies? Our insistence on treating terrorism as shoplifting that got a little out of hand does not protect Americans.

Terrified of the new global reality, Washington refuses to accept that we're no longer dealing with the political terrorists of the 20th century -- some of whom could, indeed, be won over or bought off. We're now dealing with religious madmen hungry for an apocalypse. And our government and the media scramble to deny that Islam has anything to do with it. The poor terrorists just have grievances.

If Khalid Sheik Mohammed has a heart attack during his trial, he'll get better health care than most Post readers. Paralyzed from the waist down, Maj. Hasan will get priority on rehab treatment over our vets from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Bring terrorists to Manhattan? They should never have made it to Gitmo.

Ralph Peters' latest book is "The War After Armageddon."

SOURCE:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion...yjNSdib4rBnt5H

[LongWire]

Peters knocked that one out of the park!!!!

[Box]

allow me to make a comparison:

When I was I young paramedic student we used to joke about "rhythms" on the cardiac monitor during ACLS training...
...when we didn't have an immediate answer we used to say "shock it"
Instructor: what rhythm is it?
Student: dont know
Instructor: then why are you gonna shock it?
Student: maybe it will turn into something I know how to treat- right now I am clueless and the patient is dying



Now fast forward to OEF...
maybe we cant "kill our way out of this" BUT;
the current paramedic is clueless and dont know how to treat what is showing on the monitor
...meanwhile bad guys are shooting at us because we are to determined to identify the "rhythm" showing on the monitor before we take action.

Here is the catch:
-the "paramedic" holding the paddles in this scenario doesn't have the slightest idea how to read a heart monitor and the fucking patient is dying.
Now maybe we cant kill our way "out" of the problem, but in this case the only thing our opponents understand is killing.
...and killing these fuckers has a cathartic effect. Kill enough of these cocksuckers and I promise we will get a "rhythm" we can recognize:
compliance

Once you have killed enough bad guys to get something that resembles compliance you can begin to talk about humane diplomacy. Instead of watching radical Islamic fascists set off bombs in front of their own Mosques and police stations.

...and if that doesn't work, well like I said, there is a cathartic release in shooting at these fuckers.
Watching a 500 pounder land on the ridge line were the gunfire is coming from is equally cathartic... and actually quite arousing if you ask me.

If we are going to continue to coddle our enemy and pretend that his religion has nothing to do with the problem at hand, then I recommend we just do what no one wants to say out loud:

lets quit and go home - after all we have already stated "it isn't about victory" and we don't want to "kill our way out" and we certainly have made it clear that while our enemy seems to be almost exclusively radical islamo-fascists; we are more than willing to declare that we are most certainly NOT at war with the peace loving people that practice radical islamo-fascism. Our beef is with a small percentage of normal folk that are actually just a law enforcement problem.

...as the current administration has stated in the past "we won"
cool, I got it, new sheriff in town and all that jazz...
so to quote an angry NCO from my youth:
"what are you gonna do now PL?"

...anyway rant mode deactivated
To all of you loyal Best Buy customers: happy eid

To my fellow Americans: Have a happy Thanksgiving and a Merry Christmas

[The Reaper]

I am not sure Peters is right on this one.

You cannot kill your way to success unless you are able and willing to EITHER commit genocide, OR to limit your collateral damage and kill ONLY bonafide bad guys.

If you were a foreign power in my country and you killed one of my family members, accidentally or otherwise, you would have just added at least one, if not several more enemies. You kill my wife and kids, I have no reason to live but revenge.

The people have to either fear AND respect us, or feel secure that we can take care of the good guys, and simultaneously kill only the bad guys.

Put yourself in their position and tell me what you would do, and what would cause you to support the government, versus the insurgency.

TR

[Richard]

My experiences and way of thinking also coincide with TRs on this one.

As for BLBs thoughts - the catch phrase in my day was, "What now, El-Tee?"

Richard

[Box]

I agree...
Killing innocent folk only strengthens the enemy and sinks your cause.

Continue to do the things that we do: train the locals, sink wells, provide medical care, fund projects, train the force, teach 'humanity' to the savages. Expose corruption and help solve it by showing alternatives. -Things we already do.
...but still kill the bad guys-no apologies-until they comply

Comply or as we continue to train the army and police we will accompany them on our combined journey to force the bad guys into compliance. Imposing our will on the enemy through well metered violence.

I am not talking about setting fire to the countryside, I am talking about holding hands with my Afghan counterpart and going with him into the Valley to clean out the trash.

[LongWire]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

I am not sure Peters is right on this one.

You cannot kill your way to success unless you are able and willing to EITHER commit genocide, OR to limit your collateral damage and kill ONLY bonafide bad guys.

From the scope of the article, the birds in hand, I think he is spot on. He leaves the messy bits of dealing with insurgency out intentionally. I would surmise that he wanted to concentrate on those that we had brought to justice and do them/us a solid and show them what justice is. Problem is POW status, not that they would conform to any manner of fair treatment for our guys if captured, they have proven that already.

Chime Richard.............

[MK262]

Originally Posted by Billy L-bach

I am not talking about setting fire to the countryside, I am talking about holding hands with my Afghan counterpart and going with him into the Valley to clean out the trash.

Isn't that what you all are already doing?

Or has your Command tied your hands so much that this is no longer the case?

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by MK262

Isn't that what you all are already doing?

Or has your Command tied your hands so much that it this is no longer the case?

Did you come here to troll?

TR

[MK262]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Did you come here to troll?

TR

No sir. Not at all. That was not my intention.

[nmap]

Originally Posted by Billy L-bach

Continue to do the things that we do: train the locals, sink wells, provide medical care, fund projects, train the force, teach 'humanity' to the savages. Expose corruption and help solve it by showing alternatives. -Things we already do.

I wonder if I might ask a few questions - perhaps dumb questions, but they are sincere.

First, how long do such projects normally take before they produce substantial benefits? I'm not so much asking about Afghanistan as about a more general case.

Second, are the efforts generally inexpensive, or are they costly? Building a school might not be expensive in terms of materials - but if gasoline can cost up to $400 per gallon in Afghanistan ( LINK ) due to the costs of delivery, then a can of paint might have a rather high cost too.

[frostfire]

Originally Posted by nmap

Second, are the efforts generally inexpensive, or are they costly? Building a school might not be expensive in terms of materials - but if gasoline can cost up to $400 per gallon in Afghanistan ( LINK ) due to the costs of delivery, then a can of paint might have a rather high cost too.

If one broke nurse living in his car could do it, I don't see any reason why or how the US military or America as a whole cannot.

[caveman]

Originally Posted by Warrior-Mentor

The laws of war provide for the battlefield execution of illegal combatants -- those who refuse to wear uniforms or identifying insignia or who commit atrocities. Instead, we give them flu shots before American citizens can get them.

When did this course of action cease being acceptable and what would the costs and benefits be of bringing it back? Do the laws of war even apply in a time where we are not fighting a country but rather an insurgency?

[LongWire]

Originally Posted by caveman

When did this course of action cease being acceptable and what would the costs and benefits be of bringing it back? Do the laws of war even apply in a time where we are not fighting a country but rather an insurgency?

That's the crux of a much bigger discussion, but generally summed up in Your COC's interpretation of the ROE.

[caveman]

Originally Posted by Brush Okie

Actually it is not legal the way he put it. First they must have a trial of the same sort given to a soldier of the Army otherwise a court marshal. If found guilty they can be exicuted if my memory serves me correcttly. Now I have zero problems with doing it as long as it is done in a legal manner. The question is what are the benefits vs the cost in support. IMHO not every insurgent should be tried and exicuted, however there are many that it would be appropiate for.

Originally Posted by LongWire

That's the crux of a much bigger discussion, but generally summed up in Your COC's interpretation of the ROE.

Thanks, I'll have to do some reading on the topic.