novatownhall blog

Where you are held accountable for your convictions and record

Browsing Posts tagged War

“Was killing Osama necessary?” In the opinion of this author the answer is a resounding, “Yes!”  However, many are not so sure. One of our local denizens, Eric the Half-Troll, is one such individual.

“I am very happy that they got OBL but I do not think it was worth it if we have to throw away the rule of law or our own humanity to get there.”

Obama sniffed that, “We must not take a victory lap.”  Another progressive showed his disdain for our nation’s elation that the architect of this war was dead:

The spontaneous burst of patriotism seen across the country last Sunday was in poor taste.

This sort of attitude begs the question, “What is allowable in war (according to Eric’s of the world)?” Can we bomb the enemy as was done in WWII? Are we allowed to use area weapons such as artillery, as we did in WWII? Flamethrowers? Napalm? Landmines? Why is any warfare OK? Is the nation, and the people in it, worth defending?

Eric, and much of those who espouse such de facto pacifism have, either knowingly or unknowingly, taken the posture of the Evangelical Left, and become functioning Neo-Anabaptists.

Much of the Evangelical Left, so influential on Christian college campuses and increasingly prominent in Washington, D.C., relies on these neo-Anabaptist beliefs. Sojourners activist Jim Wallis, who last week launched a crusade against “cuts” in the 2012 federal budget, adheres partly to this tradition. These neo-Anabaptists demand total pacifism and reject the military.

Osama would kill as many Americans as possible. To him, killing all Americans was a religious duty:

We — with God’s help — call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God’s order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it.

When confronted by danger or evil, a serious argument can be made that protecting the defenseless (like the three thousand victims in the Twin Towers), should be a nation’s first priority. Dithering only leads to more lives lost. So how is it moral to allow more lives to be sacrificed on the alter of pacifism? Why are we not waging all-out war? This war in Afghanistan has been going on for ten years. What are the wages of this restraint?

There is no room for compromise or coexistence with one such as Osama; for it is he and those like him who shall not compromise, let alone make an accommodation. How does delaying the inevitable elevate us? Since all life is precious, then why is the defense of life not moral? The pacifist must answer this question, “Is not defense of one’s self and nation a basic human right?” Why does this wing of the American body politic seek to deny us the right of self defense?

“We should not lose our identity fighting the terrorists.”, is the common refrain of the left wing pacifists. Our national identity includes firebombing Dresden and Tokyo in the defense of our nation. Our national identity includes shooting Yamamoto out of the sky to shorten the war in the Pacific. We dropped atomic bombs on Japan to end WWII. Liberals hold up that war as the good fight? Back then, getting the war over with as soon as possible was the top priority in order to save American lives. What is it about double-tapping a monster like Osama that suddenly mars us? Since when is the killing of an implacable foe cause for us to lose our identity and humanity?

Al-Awlaki is committing treason. I do not believe that he has been convicted of treason. In this Jack has a point. That being said …

I recall that in the out on the western frontier many a sheriff’s would put up ‘wanted dead or alive’ posters or even “wanted dead” posters in public spaces. The “wanted” were then typically made dead. The end result was that in the West many people by the beginning of the 20th century slept without locking their doors. Were those sheriff’s outside the law? At the very least al-Awlaki is an outlaw.

Consider this: during WWII Americans were caught during the battle of the bulge wearing American uniforms, but fighting for the Germans. These American were recruited before the war. They helped train Germans to speak better English and then they accompanied these German troops into battle to wreak havoc behind American lines. After capture they were shot without a trial. This was done on orders from Ike.

No one filed a charges against Eisenhower for killing these ‘allegedly’ treasonous Americans. Why? Because those who take up arms against us on the battlefield are at war with us. Because during war one does not have to abide by civilian rules of engagement on the battlefield. Similarly, we also did not read the Jap’s their Miranda rights before we turned a flamethrower on them as they hid in their bunkers.

Al-Awlaki is on the battlefield. The term battlefield has been forever more been changed by the Islamic Jihad that threatens our civilization. The battlefield now includes the cockpits of airliners. The discotheques, pizza parlors and bus stops of the world are also on the battlefield. The battlefield is not a plain in the middle of nowhere with armed uniformed men facing other uniformed armed men. The battlefield is now fought in a suitcase buried in the cargo compartment of an Airbus over Scotland.

The Islamic Jihadists like al-Awlaki hide behind their woman and children. From this position they attack our women and children. The likes of al-Awlaki do not wear uniforms to announce their allegiance. They attack the unarmed in their homes, offices and shops or on their way to these places. They do so because they are seeking to destroy our civilization.

What rules? What decency? What limits? This is a war being waged by a band of unwashed thugs, dressed in street garb — goaded on by imams such as al-Awlaki. In WWII we used intelligence to kill Admiral Yamamoto. He was the leader who planned the attack on Pearl Harbor. Al-Awlaki is a leader of the Jihadist army that plans attacks on civilians and soldiers alike. Killing him with high explosives is in line with the manner in which he kills. We used planes to target Yamamoto; the attack on our fleet was conducted with similar aircraft. Killing the Jihadist Al-Awlaki, a US citizen, who has placed himself on the battlefield, is an act of war during this time of war.

WWII was fought with armies using tanks, planes, and ships. The National Socialists used tanks, planes, and ships. Did we become National Socialists because we too used tanks, planes, and ships? The war today is conducted in the streets using bombs, with the chief target being those who are not wearing a uniform. Those we fight do not wear uniforms. Should we avoid killing them because they are not organized into battalions and dressed in some homogeneous garb?

The Jihadists use the Geneva convention as a weapon to be turned on the civilization that created it. Our civilization must defend itself from this perversion. Similarly, our constitution is not a suicide pact to be used against us. We must fight this war using what are the tanks and planes of this war. This means high explosives detonated without a notice of intent, in order to prosecute with extreme prejudice the Jihadist scum who would murder us in our sleep.