Don’t Eschew The Reaper

David French on the wrong response to Manchester…:

Let me share with you some deeply flawed words from the editorial board of the New York Times. I do this not because the Times is alone in its sentiment but because the paragraph below is perfectly representative of the wrong approach to fighting terror. Reflecting on the Manchester bombing, the editors say this: Meanwhile, as hard as it is amid the shock and the mourning, it is important to recognize this attack for what it is: an attempt to shake Britain — and, by extension, the rest of Europe and the West — to its core, and to provoke a thirst for vengeance and a desire for absolute safety so intense, it will sweep away the most cherished democratic values and the inclusiveness of diverse societies.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/447972/manchester-attack-britain-needs-vengeance-not-justice

…and the right one.

So, Britain, ignore the New York Times. Give in to your “thirst for vengeance.” In a manner that is consistent with the laws of war and the great tradition of British arms, make an example of ISIS. Destroy terrorist safe havens with prompt, decisive force, pursue terrorists wherever they flee, and send a clear message. Terrorists have sown the wind. They will reap the whirlwind. Avenge your fallen.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/447972/manchester-attack-britain-needs-vengeance-not-justice

Read the whole thing.

Posted

May 30, 2017

War And Peace, Western Civilization

Mitch Berg

Tags:

Comments

5 responses to “Don’t Eschew The Reaper”

Penigma

May 30, 2017

Mitch, this goes right back to your solution to terrorism of, “Kill the terrorists until all the terrorists are dead.” This article and your solution assumes the quantity of terrorists is both relatively finite and limited. It is neither. It also assumes ISIS is something you can destroy by “unleashing the whirlwind.” Did that kind of heavy handed recklessness work in Iraq, is it working in Afghanistan? You know, I think, that the rebellion against the Shia government only abated when the US started being a LOT more careful about avoiding civilian casualties and started working with locals.

It’s EASY, the easiest thing in the world really, to seek blood. It’s easy to bomb and kill people when you have the far more powerful military, but it solves almost nothing. The solution to ISIS itself is taking out Raqqa and the rest of the cities held by ISIS but that’s already underway, and was WELL underway under the Obama administration. Trump giving arms to the Kurds helps with that but angers the Turks. Does anyone who has a lick of sense think the Russians or the Turks will sit idle as the Brits put troops into Syria? Do you think the Iraqis would allow troops into Iraq? No, they will not, they will not sit idle, the Iraqis will not allow it.

So, this article is the height of foolishness and ignorance. It’s easy to ask for blood, it’s much harder to be effective and more than that, it means the “finite” number of terrorists grows, not shrinks.
justplainangry

May 30, 2017

Oh c’mon, French. You warmonger! Dontcha now kumbaya and red lines solve everything!
Ian in Iowa

May 30, 2017

Pen,

And your recommendation would be…?

Appeasement didn’t work when Neville Chamberlain tried it with a certain German chancellor, why is it more likely to work with a bunch of religious fanatics whose vocabulary likely doesn’t include the word “negotiate”?
Troy

May 30, 2017

Penigma thinks Obama foreign policy (“strength through weakness”) was super effective (“already underway, and was WELL underway under the Obama administration”).

I wonder if he can find support for his assumption outside the fever swamp.
bikebubba

May 30, 2017

Penigma wrote:

Mitch, this goes right back to your solution to Nazism of, “Kill the Nazis until all the Nazis are dead.” This article and your solution assumes the quantity of Nazis is both relatively finite and limited. It is neither. It also assumes Nazi Germany is something you can destroy by “unleashing the whirlwind.” Did that kind of heavy handed recklessness work in World War One, is it working in the Pacific? You know, I think, that the rebellion against the Versailles Treaty only abated when Neville Chamberlain obtained “Peace in Our Time.”

It’s EASY, the easiest thing in the world really, to seek blood. It’s easy to bomb and kill people when you have the far more powerful military, but it solves almost nothing.

(snip)

So, this article is the height of foolishness and ignorance. It’s easy to ask for blood, it’s much harder to be effective and more than that, it means the “finite” number of Nazis grows, not shrinks.

There, fixed it for you, Peev. Sorry, but reality is that if you refuse to treat murderous thugs as such, they do not get nicer, but rather bolder. Islamist radicals are currently killing people unsupported by the U.S. in various of the central asian republics, Thailand, Malaysia, China, India, throughout northern and central Africa, the Balkans, and more.