Wednesday, 1 April 2026
How to end the war? Win it
You don’t win a war by leaving the battle ground. You can claim victory all you want, but the other side is going to say “we outlasted you”. You don’t win a war by a ceasefire. At best that gives a “frozen conflict” like Korea. But “victory”? That’s when the other side gives up. That’s when you achieve your clearly stated war goals.
The goals of Operation Epic Fury are clear. No matter how much CNN, BBC, MSNBC and all the rest may repeat “the war aims are not clear”; they are. The president and Foreign Secretary Marco Rubio have stated them repeatedly and clearly. Here they are, from my memory:
1. Destroy the Iranian Army. Tick.
2. Destroy the Iranian Navy. Tick
3. Destroy or decimate the Iranian ballistic missiles system. In progress
4. Destroy the military manufacturing systems, such that 1, 2, and 3 cannot be rebuilt. In progress
The result of these four aims is an Iran that cannot threaten the region and the world. A Iran that cannot build a nuclear bomb. They give an opportunity to the Iranian people to rise up and create their own government.
These are clear aims. I buy them. So do the vast majority of Republicans and a majority of all Americans.
 |
| Republicans on Iran war and Trump |
I’m speaking here as one who remembers clearly the 2003 invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. In this household we were against both those wars. As Richard Clark, counter terror czar, said:
“Attacking Iraq after 911 was like attacking Mexico after Pearl Harbour”.
That sure stuck in the mind…
“This time it’s different”. Well, yes, it is. For a start the clearly-expressed aims are convincing. We were never convinced by the WMD excuse for attacking Iraq. We were not convinced by Colin Powell’s pivotal presentation to the United Nations. We were never convinced that “getting” Osama bin Ladin needed a full-scale war in Afghanistan.
Iran, by contrast does have uranium to 60%, does and has threatened the region and the world, does and has killed thousands of Americans and people of all nations, and tens of thousands of its own people, it does and has supported terror proxies around the world, and does have a ballistic missile program aimed at Europe and the United States.
Let’s also recall that in Iraq we did not lose the war. The war was quickly and convincingly won. We lost the peace. The whole process of “nation building” was ineptly handled; it should never have been attempted. There is not such aim in Operation Epic Fury in Iran.
That’s called “learning from experience”.
Emily Scheader makes my points better than me, in this video, Grok transcript summary below:
Islam really DOES "hate our freedoms"
This was Question number one in the 3.5 hour (!) discussion between Coleman Hughes and Dave Smith some 5 months ago.
Coleman agrees with Dave's opening claim that there's no truth to the idea that Osama bin Ladin and Al Qaeda attacked America on 911 because "They hate our freedoms".
While I'm shaking my head: but it is true!
And I have the proof. The writings of Osama bin Ladin himself.
Look at this quote from bin Ladin:
“For practically everything valued by the immoral West is condemned under Sharia law.”
Isn't that the very definition of hating the "immoral West" for its freedoms?
Bin Ladin's writings were collected and translated by Raymond Ibrahim in his book "The Al Qaeda Reader" (2002). Which I consider -- after my 20 years of reading and following the deeds and depredations of Islam -- to be a must-read for anyone trying to understand motives of the likes of ISIS, Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, Jihadis in general and, yes, even the Iranian mullahs today.
One of the few who does understand, who's not a Muslim, is Sam Harris. He has written well and trenchantly on the subject. EG: "What do Jihadists really want?", 26 August 2016. And the related post on ISIS.
Meanwhile, Dave Smith's belief that Jihadi Muslims are out to attack the west because of (or mainly because of) what he calls "terrestrial grievances", like the Israel-Palestine issue, colours every bit of his analyses, and ruins many of them.
One way this belief ruins his analysis is that it's western-centric. The idea that if we we fix this or that, then all will be well. No. It's not true.
We can do all the Jihadis demand, attend to all their grievances, and they will still want to kill us (unless we convert). Because that's Islam. That's what Islam demands. That's what the Koran demands. That's what Muhammad o.b.o. his god, demands.
I'm reposting below a piece I wrote here on 25 August 2009. It seems that I was responding a BBC World Service radio program of that day. I talk a lot about Ibrahim and the writings of bin Ladin.
I remember thinking that even if the BBC did nothing about my suggestion, I might educate some of its staffers in the editorial rooms. In this I have clearly had zero impact, for they are more Islamo-philic than ever.
Yet, as I re-read what I wrote 17 years ago, it's just as true today as it was then. It's been true since the birth of Islam 1,400 years ago: Submit or Die, infidel!
The post, 25 August 2009:
If we give away Israel, all will be ok.... (not)
Michael Scheuer claims on BBC Radio International (675 AM Hong Kong) that there is no "corpus of rhetoric" to show that Osama bin Laden “hates the West’s liberty, freedom or our way of life”. If we address Islamic grievances (Palestine, Iraq war, abandon Israel, and so forth) we shall be able to coexist in peace.
In this he is demonstrably wrong. Worse: he is willfully –and therefore deceitfully – wrong for he knows that such writings exist.
Demonstrably wrong:
On freedom, liberty and the West’s way of life:
“For practically everything valued by the immoral West is condemned under Sharia law.” (p.37)
On coexistence:
“Does Islam or does it not, force people by the power of the sword to submit to its authority corporeally if not spiritually? Yes. There are only three choices in Islam; either willing submission; or payment of the jizya [tax on non-Muslims]…; or the sword – for it is not right to let the infidel live. The matter is summed up for every person alive: Either submit, or live under the suzerainty of Islam; or die”. (p.42)
In case we miss the point:
“In fact, Muslims are obligated to raid the lands of the infidels, occupy them and exchange their systems of governance for an Islamic system, barring any practice that contradicts the Sharia from being publicly voiced among the people…”. (p.51)
These are clear and unequivocal statements by al-Qaeda, and there are many, many more, authorized or written by bin Laden or Ayman al-Zawahiri. Why does Mr. Scheuer say they “don’t exist”??
Willfully wrong: it would be one thing if Scheuer were ignorant of bin Laden’s writings. But he is not, as evidenced by the debate, in late 2008, with Raymond Ibrahim here. Scheuer says Ibrahim has been “selective”. Well, of course one has to be selective in any “Reader”…. But, as Ibrahim points out, the Reader quotes writings and speeches from al-Qaeda which are directed both at the Muslim world and those directed at the West. In any case, whatever the selectivity, to say that there is no evidence of al-Qaeda hating the West’s freedoms (“hating our MacDonalds” as Scheuer cutely puts it), is clearly false and it is equally clear that Scheuer knows of these writings.
This is too important a topic to leave the last word to Scheuer and his deceit. As Scheuer himself says, it’s a matter of “knowing one’s enemy”. Are al-Qaeda after settling grievances (Palestine, the Iraq and Afghani wars, etc), or are they after world domination of Islamic Sharia? Clearly the former does not preclude the latter. And clearly the latter – suzerainty of Islamic Sharia – is of overarching importance to al-Qaeda and their fellow travellers. To say that it’s only the former (Islamic grievances), as does Scheuer and to ignore the latter (Islamic suzerainty) is surely propagating a dangerous misconception.
I urge the BBC to invite Raymond Ibrahim to put the case that the world view of bin Laden and his cronies includes world-wide Islamic caliphate, under Sharia law.
1. The Al Qaeda Reader, Raymond Ibrahim, Doubleday, NY, 2007, p.22 et. seq.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)