Today I was asked what we should do about the war on terror.
My response - kill them all.
Response: But you can't kill them all.
****************************************
The above statements are quite significant, indicating where we are, what we think, and our worldview.
The implication of 'but you can't kill them all' is, there are too many, that if you kill one, another five will pop up - I believe is inaccurate, and the result of facile arguments by unquestioned fools on a subject they are clearly clueless about - spewing this nonsense out into the public square for inquiring minds who have few ideas about what to believe or not to believe.
They raise the point that for every terrorist in Iraq killed, more pop up.
It simply is not true.
The answers are much more complicated than the question, and when multiple voices agitate for attention, no one is well served.
In Iraq we fought more than al-qaida (terrorists), more than insurgents, more than bad people - we fought everyone and from everywhere and few of them were operating with the same agenda.
I have already caused at least one person to become confused. Now imagine if I tried to explain this with 30 other voices offering their input!
We invaded Iraq and toppled a government in a couple weeks. We were met with sweets and flowers. We were met with joy, happiness, and the overwhelming appreciation of a nation. Contrary to the simplistic statements of press and fool, we were received VERY WELL.
However, in toppling the regime of Saddam, his government, his army, and the Sunni lost everything they had secured over 30 years. Their path to privilege was taken away in two weeks. The army was without a purpose. The intelligence agencies were dissolved and unemployed. Sunni had lost their power base, their wealth, their connection to the past and they were not pleased.
The army went underground and fought for little reason other than they had no other purpose, and were led to believe that that was what they should do, perhaps drive the invaders out using guerrilla tactics.
The Sunni became insurgents because they had nothing, all was taken away and joining an insurgency movement was something more than nothing which is literally all they had when Saddam was gone. When I say they had nothing, I do mean nothing. All electrical, water, food, medical - stopped or turned off. The shi'a would begin to retaliate against the Sunni rule by executing and destroying any vestige of Sunni power.
The Sunni of both the former army/intelligence, and the wider Sunni body killed Americans not for religious reasons, but because we were the invaders. They may have acted badly, killed people who were trying to change their country for the better, but they could be negotiated with - and after a couple years, they were slowly brought back into the political process and the former army / intelligence and opposition Sunni elements have given up their attacks.
But what of those who lost family and are angry - who struck out and killed Americans. Absolutely true. That reason - honor, restoring honor, or revenge - does not require nor did it often happen that the person would fight on for years. They sought revenge and when, in their mind, they had killed someone they deemed responsible, their need for revenge or honor was satisfied, and they went home. Could they or did they pick up the gun again - quite possible, depending upon whether they lost another family member.
All of these groups - Sunni generally, army and intelligence more specifically were manageable - they fought against the US, but were given choices that offered hope and opportunity and they chose that path. We still faced violence when the Shi'a sought revenge for 30 years of repression by the Sunni. Hundreds and thousands of Sunni would die, and any American in the way would die, or be forced to kill a Shi'a, which in turn would raise the possibility of a revenge attack by the family of the Shi'a killed.
As never-ending as it may seem, it does end. These characters do not want to die. they are not terrorists. They do not wish to spend eternity in a shit hole. They want a better life, and we offered them that choice.
These groups have given up, and rejoined the political process.
The Shi'a have never finished their 30 year revenge tour, and will engage in the political process given their superiority of numbers.
There will be violence as Sunni and Shi'a settle decades of hatred and animosity, and if Americans are in the way, they may be killed. This in no ways means the Americans are the target, simply by-standers.
Then come the NON-IRAQIs who walk/fly/drive to Iraq because they have been fed the poison - go and jihad, kill Americans. The majority of these insurgents believe they are doing what is best for Iraq. When they began secretly entering Iraq, no one stopped them, and they killed at will. Today, the Sunni work against the insurgents, and have very nearly stopped their incursions into Iraq. They have convinced them, based upon their amicable working relationships in and with the government, that no one wants them in Iraq. They are being killed off by the Sunni tribal militias, or they have simply stopped trying to enter Iraq.
That leaves the final group - terrorists or al qaida. They do not have Sunni interests at heart, hate the Shi'a, and generally hate anyone who is doing well. What the US decided with al qaida was - kill them all. The Sunni tribes were engaged, and became front line warriors against al qaida, as did the Shi'a - and now, thanks to the Sunni tribes and the Shi'a - al qaida is very nearly extinct in Iraq.
Why? because we killed them, because NO it does not breed more, because the issue is ever so much more complicated than a 500 word column in the newspaper would allow for, and no amount of time in a classroom would permit for the time it would take to explain the preceding - espefially with 30 voices agitating for two minutes in the lime-light... it is simply too complicated.
So, one might ask - how are we supposed to know all this? Clearly not from Bush, who cannot explain how to get to his office, from down the hall - but in a way, he does. Bush does not deal with the small stuff, but his statements, if you go back and read them, in light of the preceding, and consider his statements in light of the reality of the events in Iraq - he did explain it. The problem - loonies on the left didn't like his simplistic explanations, deconstructed what he said and soon, no one understood anything and when they tried to articulate it, the left attacked them as too simplistic and Bush et al gave up trying.
So how do we 'kill them all' and who is 'all of them'?
Intelligence analysis and polls indicate between 10-12% of the Muslim population world-wide support the ideology and actions of Bin laden (al qaida, using Laden as a representative of what we can call terrorists).
120 million people support him.
BUT, a much smaller percent want to actively participate in killing innocents. The rest content themselves to sit in their E-Z Boys and watch it being done. Some estimates suggest 1% of the 10%.
1.2 million.
But how many of them would actually do the killing when it was demanded of them? How many could be convinced otherwise?
One report suggests the number of die-hard terrorists at 100,000 to 500,000. That is, those men who would lie down and die for al qaida / bin Laden / the cause, and not question or deviate from the request.
The remainder are arm-chair supporters. They will fund, aid, support, provide shelter to - but they have no desire to climb into the killing pit. The governments of the forty or so countries are charged with sorting out this remainder - dealing with the issues and eliminating threats as they rise in their respective countries.
For the remaining 100,000 to 500,000 ... you kill them.
So you kill them and their brother stands up for them. Yes, and no. Jihadists tend not to be followed by their relatives seeking revenge ... they do it for other reasons. Of course we find Palestinians who follow their sister, brother, mother, father down the path to hell, but there are other motivations than because they 'want' to. They are a special case.
We are also not dealing with 100,000 people in one country in one city. These 100-500 thousand are spread across the globe in 190 countries. It is then the responsibility of local police and intelligence services, and army to find them and either make them see the error of their ways or kill them.
If we work with the millions who may not like us, but who will embrace the opportunity for a future that is provided, we will slowly eliminate the recruitment pool of the jihadists (the 100-500 thousand). As they are killed off, fewer will join as more embrace the opportunity for life and hope. In time, we will have trimmed the numbers down considerably and it will be more garbage collection than military action.
Do I over simplify - absolutely. Do I denigrate the threat the 500,000 pose - yes. Are they dangerous - absolutely - nuclear and bilogical weapins side - I do not believe we need to or should talk to them. There is no reason, and nothing but negatives if we do - they have been brainwashed and seek nothing more than dying.
So yes - we can kill them all (those we must kill), oblige their desire; and no, they will not simply sprout up like weeds.
If all else fails ... let's hire the shi'a.
terrorism
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments