Friday, October 3, 2014

Can we call it war now?

Islamic State has beheaded another British hostage, Alan Henning, and has another American on deck for a slicing.

If we're not following the prescription of Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, then we're not doing what's adequate:

The way you deal with Islamic State, these bloodthirsty, blood drunken terrorists, is to kill them, keep on killing them, until you kill the last one and then you kill his pet goat.

When do we take it to that level?  Yet this afternoon?


11 comments:

  1. I think we're playing right into their insanity, but, oh well, it appears the polls say most Americans are falling for it. One would think Britain might be up for it. I hear Congress is supposed to have some say as are other allies per previous treaties. No I do not condone beheadings either. It can't be winning friends and influencing fence sitters for ISIS.

    ReplyDelete
  2. And what does "not falling for it" look like?

    "Falling for it" almost sounds like they're bluffing us rather than really cutting people's heads off.

    Nor do you condone beheadings? How do we get them to stop? Strongly worded letters? Sanctions against IS's high-tech and agricultural exports?

    ReplyDelete
  3. To stop them? How do we get any murderers anywhere to stop? They want us to scurry around, scratching our heads, wondering which country to invade and who to bomb next. Do you get that maimed and bloodied and dead children from our fire and brimstone from the skies wins enemies and influences jihad? And, yes, a strong case can be made that these vids are fake.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Wasn't at all that long ago we tried a wider war and we all wearied of it. You know the definition of insanity. Another thing is we take sides where we have no business taking sides. Of course you will disagree. I have no clue what victory would look like over there but you think you do but we ain't achieved it yet and likely never will no matter how many bombs are dropped or howuch blood is spilled. And in the end it will be statecraft. It always is.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Statecraft" seems like such a vague term as to be wholly inadequate as an answer here. Do you envision sitting down at a conference table with ISIS representatives and negotiating terms of a peace that gives them their caliphate?

    What other parties will be at the table? Turkey? Under Erdogan, not such a reliable ally. Egypt? I can't see the al-Sisi regime standing for such capitulation. Britain, France and / or Germany? Given the rise of right-leaning parties in each of those countries, I don't think they'd sign on. Do we want Russia at the table?

    So tell me more about this "statecraft" and how you see it working.

    ReplyDelete
  6. In the end there is always peaceful negptiation. Get that word? Negotiation.

    ReplyDelete
  7. War. Such a clear word. Such a cloudy solution. Ahh, but you ate a hawk so for you its always a solution.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The only "peaceful" negotiation that ever occurs is when one side in a conflict has soundly defeated the other and tells the vanquished party what the terms of the peace are going to be. Never works any other way.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I will buy that. So when was the last time we were able to do that? Ask not to whom the spoils go, they went to our allies who promptly became our enemies. What's up with that?

    ReplyDelete
  10. We'd be able to do it any time we mustered sufficient will.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Will for what? Will to be dicktators? Even your beloved Ronnie used mostly charm.

    ReplyDelete