Sunday, January 11, 2015

How to Win A War

Ralph Peters is right.  We must accept that we are being systematically attacked by Islamists bent on imposing Islam on all of humanity.  The only thing that has ever controlled the Islamists is absolute dictators who used absolute brutality to maintain control. 

The other assault on Western civilization is the stealth jihad lead mainly by the Saudis with their thousands of Wahhabi mosques staffed with Saudi trained Imams and their multi-million dollar donations to major universities to build "Islamic centers" throughout the West. 

We have truly been engaged in World War III, but our feckless leaders, for whatever reasons refuse to admit it and go on the offensive against the invasion.


Retired Lt. Col. Goes Off, Explains How to Win a War: ‘Leave Behind Smoking Ruins and Crying Widows’

January 10, 2015 By Greg Campbell

In what is, perhaps, one of the greatest, most clear-cut and brutally-honest assessments about the U.S.’s “War on Terror,” retired Lt. Col. and current Fox News military analyst Ralph Peters highlighted what needs to be done to win this war.

Spoiler Alert: coddling and reasoning with those who want us dead does not make it onto Peters’ list.

On Friday’s “The O’Reilly Factor,” Peters remarked that the way to win a war is not to coddle, but to engage in Sherman-esque total war and “leave behind smoking ruins and crying widows.”

Peters outlined his plan for winning a war:

    “One, you accept that you are in a war. Two, you name the enemy: Islamist terrorists. Three, you get the lawyers off the battlefield and out of the targeting cell. You accept there will be collateral damage, and do you not apologize for it, you do not nation build. You don’t hold — try to hold ground. You go wherever in the world the terrorists are and you kill them. You do your best to exterminate them, and then you leave, and you leave behind smoking ruins and crying widows. If in five or ten years they reconstitute and you have got to go back, you go back and you do the same thing and you never never never send American troops into a war you don’t mean to win.” And “be as merciless as the enemy, if you’re not willing to do that, they will win.”

When discussing how to deal with state sponsors of terrorism, Peters explained:

    “We have 2,000 years of recorded history of religious insurgencies, the only thing that has worked in 2,000 years is killing them. Now, as far as countries that don’t want to play ball, very simple. Pakistan doesn’t want to crack down on the Haqqani Network, we tell them ‘we are going to go in and take them out, and if you get in our way, we are going to smack your military down’…in a war you fight to win, you don’t worry about political correctness. The jihadis will do anything to win, and we’re worried about our table manners.”

Peters’ assessment is absolutely correct. While leaders should think long and hard about engaging in a war and should only put our service members in harm’s way only when every other option has failed, the true goal of the conflict should be to win as quickly as possible and get home as quickly as possible.

All other distractions and political considerations should be a distant thought compared to the mindset of winning the war, protecting as many of our lives as possible and ending the war with the complete and utter defeat of the enemy.

While naïve hippies might balk at such a brutal notion, the fact is that a prolonged war littered with casualties is a far crueler notion than an awe-inspiring devastation of the enemy that shortens combat significantly.