Response vs perceived potential

Submitted by Hector Rodriguez (United States), Jul 24, 2003 at 22:43

A measured response has to be balanced against something, mustly a perceived potential or the capacity of the threat to execute its perceived intentions. With the USSR it was simple, their marxist dilema rested on how to project enough power overseas to become a true shaper of political destiny. Since their capacity was limited their only other course of action was the overthrow of decadent goverments.

As history will have it, the allure of capitalism took the day. The rest is history.

With this new enemy, the battlefield is quite different, because their driving force is not nationalism or ideologies but a very twisted form of religion. We find ourselves dealing with goverments that will offer to help, then issue explosives and weapons to our enemies only to later attack them, capture them and if need be, kill them. One of the first tenets of this movement is quite simple: "lie to your enemy until you can destroy him". T.R. Faranbaugh in his book "This kind of war" clearly proved the need for legions, and thank's to the Almighty we have them. The kind of men that will put on a rocksac and run the ridges for days. That will land on someone's back yard and terminated the threat violently. Of a spirit, dedication and focus that you can see on the movie "Blackhawk down", why they do it?, a civilian will never understand.

One thing is missing in this equation: the goverments' resolve to wage "total war" not against shadows or small bands, but against the societies that willingly support these predators. Total war, total destruction, no more. Offended, sorry, if you are, it is because you are one of those for whom I and others would have willingly lay our lives down, for we heard the call and felt lead to answer. You are our sacred charge, always destine to notice only our backs, as we kept the line, never to falter.

Harris is right but fails to arrive at the obvious conclusion: this war will eventually claim societies and countries, not for their potential threat, but because they fuel the enemies' efforts.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".