The old history repeating trope is playing again.
The editorial boards across the West are calling for war. From the USA Today Editorial Board we get a dose of that post-9/11 feel:
It is a war in which it is impossible to protect every “soft target,” so the international community must take the fight to the enemy, which has established strongholds in Syria and Iraq. It cannot be won by playing defense or “containing” the threat.
It is a war that, if we are not careful, threatens to undermine civil liberties, compassion for refugees, religious freedom and other values that define Western society.
It is a war that is likely to be long, and it will be hard to know when it is over. Surrender won’t come at a courthouse or on a battleship.
It is a war in which there is nothing to negotiate. There are no territorial lines to discuss, no acceptable political compromises. The enemy must be destroyed, using the full array of military, economic and intelligence means.
It is a war in which the path to victory will be erratic. Successes, such as last week’srecapture of Sinjar in Iraq and the apparent killing of the psychopathic Islamic Stateexecutioner known as Jihadi John, will be followed by tragedies such as Friday’s attacks.
It is a war of modernity against medievalism, of civilization against barbarity.
The LA Times takes a different tack. They don't want more war in the Middle East. They rightly note that the US and it's allies haven't won any of the conflicts they've entered into in the Middle East. For this angle, I give them credit. Now if they address the second problem...
A new strategy may also require increased vigilance about the infiltration of potential terrorists. But that mustn't lead to the scapegoating of refugees who in many cases are fleeing Islamic State.
Not for the first time, a small but determined group of terrorists has been able to exploit the openness of Western society to commit murder and mayhem on a monstrous scale. Nations such as France and the United States need to find a way to respond to that asymmetric threat without curtailing civil liberties or closing their borders.
Too much to hope for. They don't recognize that the other half of the war is in the Islamic colonization of Europe. The fools. How come they haven't noticed the inverse relationship between a Muslim population and civil liberties yet (it only took 19 kebabs to give us the Patriot Act)? Anyways, what the LA times - and the NY Times as we will see - are advocating is more war. Instead of it being in Syria, they want more war at home on Parisian streets and between New York skyscrapers.
From the New York Times we get concern trolling over the far-right and Marine Le Pen's National Front. Worried about reprisals and "draconian" anti-terrorism laws disenfranchising France's 5 million Muslims.
France already has some of Europe’s most intensive antiterrorist policing; adopting draconian measures of the sort demanded by far-right nationalists like Marine Le Pen of the National Front can only further alienate France’s Muslim population of five million, without offering any assurance against more attacks.
The discovery of a Syrian passport near one of the attackers, which matched one used by an asylum-seeker who had entered Europe through Greece, was bound to intensify anti-refugee sentiments and calls to close Europe’s open internal borders. There is no proof that the owner of the passport was one of the gunmen. And even if one of the attackers had entered Europe in the guise of a refugee, the first gunman to be conclusively identified, Omar Ismail Mostefai, was not a refugee, but a French citizen born and raised in a town just south of Paris.
If we close our borders and say no more Muslims ISIS will win! (This is bull and I'll show why later.)
Pouring fuel on the passions swirling around refugees and Muslims in Europe was no doubt a major goal behind the ISIS attack. The choice of the neighborhoods where most attacks occurred, an ethnically diverse area in eastern Paris increasingly populated by young professionals, seemed designed to send the message that tolerance would be no protection against what ISIS described in a communiqué as the coming “storm.”
We must go to war with ISIS together, as a unified front:
The attacks in Paris sent a major shockwave around the world, and the Beirut bombings and the downing of the Russian civilian jetliner were every bit as horrific. ISIS has demonstrated that there is no limit to its reach, and no nation is really safe until they all come together to defeat this scourge.
Band aids. Half-measures. Foolishness all.
None of these scenarios will really delve into the problem at the heart of the Islamic Question in the West. So I will, and I will explain how to fix the problem with ISIS.
The first step is to acknowledge the incompatibility of Islam with the West. No amount of assimilation, pandering, head scarf banning, or halal meat selling is going to curry favor with the Islamic hordes or force them to become Westerners. It's not in their DNA, nor is it in their religious/political ideology. As outsiders Muslims will always be looking in. At least until the day they raise the banner of Islam over the house.
A complete expulsion of all Muslims—regardless of race, country of origin, social station, or occupation—must take place. As long as there are Muslims on European soil, so too will there be a threat of Islamic terrorism.
Closing down the borders and deporting Muslims would solve the domestic issue and aid our foreign posture against ISIS. How?
The United States and her allies have not defeated the Taliban. It is stronger than ever. Al-Qaeda was replaced by a more powerful version in the Islamic State. Every amount of pressure we place on militant Islamists displaces that effort. In effect we are trying to kill a virus that is mutating faster than our antibiotics can keep up with. All we are doing is making them stronger every time we drop a bomb. ISIS knows this too. In previous posts I've highlighted the anti-fragility of Islamist movements. Adapting to the situation is their only option. Sticking to what worked in the past isn't an option, so innovation is always a priority, whether they know it or not.
The way the United States and allies work is by targeting leadership positions to "cut off the head of the snake". One would think that should create disarray and disorganization. On the contrary, if you're an up-and-coming lieutenant with your own ideas on how to implement strategy after years of experience in the field fighting but your superior is set in his ways obstructing you, then you have a slowdown in innovation. If he bites the bunker-buster dust, you just got promoted. Now you can put your ideas into motion. By forcing them to evolve we are always one step behind.
Islamic movements thrive on war and expansion. Only when they are bottled up do they begin to turn inwardly on themselves.
Expansion does not necessarily mean conquest. By accepting in immigrants, even before the current refugee wave, we allowed the basis from which ISIS (and other groups before that) have been able to strike into the heart of Europe itself. Whether or not 1% of Muslims are terrorists need not matter. If the figure was 0% then from no internal source could Islamists strike inside Europe. The refugee wave only exacerbates an already bad situation. Open borders facilitate Islamic expansion, terrorism, and conquest.
I have no doubt in my mind that the United States and our allies could defeat ISIS if we invaded the Islamic State. We'd win. Easily. As I pointed out, though, do we really want that? The remnants would go underground and flee—dispersing throughout the world whether it be to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, or Turkey; but also, much more worryingly, to Europe. Our fools in power don't seem to comprehend what that would mean.
I give the example of the Tuareg people in Libya. Tuaregs are a warrior race of the Sahara. Muammar Qaddafi used them as soldiers in his own military. After the fall of Qaddafi, and with his patronage now gone, they went south to Mali and carved out their own homeland of Azawad. The French military had to go in to reunite Mali by force.
The same thing would happen with a complete military defeat of ISIS in Syria. Instead of fleeing to take over another nation they'd flee back into the shadows of committing terrorism across the Islamic and Western worlds. Nothing would be more bitter for a militant Islamist than the defeat of the Caliphate at the hands of Westerners. The Horror in Paris was bad, but what they'd have in store would be far worse.
The only thing we can do about ISIS? Contain it and feed it.
That's right. Don't touch it or pet it. Keep it in a cage and feed it.
The best thing about this plan is that we don't even need to build the cage. The walls are already there in Jordan, Turkey, Assad's Syria, Iran, and (lol) Israel. If we step off the attacks on ISIS we force everyone else around to up their investment on containing ISIS. At no cost to us. We will be saving money on munitions, flight time, deployments, and lives that we are currently using to make ISIS stronger.
As I've shown, the Islamic State thrives on expansion and evolves according to the amount of pressure we place on it. If we remove the evolutionary pressure and starve it of expansion we will have begun the first step in stagnating militant Islam. ISIS wants purity. Take that away. Force back the impure ones that fled. (If they don't want to go back we can restart the ovens in Belsen and/or hire Serbian Kebab Removal services. No big loss and I'm sure that'll convince them that Syria is a better option than Serbia.) But ultimately the goal should be to turn ISIS' violent ways unto itself. With millions of refugees being forced back they'd have no choice but to slow their expansionist desires and deal with the issue at hand. We don't even have to ship direct to Syria. Just send them on boats to other Middle Eastern nations who will then keep passing the buck because no one wants these people. No one. The Middle East dealing with their own refugee crises—it would be a hilarious turn of events.
Even if ISIS uses the new refugee wave to destabilize Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, or Saudi Arabia, eh, fuck it. I don't care. We have borders, boats, and bombs to prevent them from being our problem. Let's use 'em.
With strong borders and a kebab-free West ISIS can't touch us.
The West, if it followed my plan, could just sit back and watch ISIS decay within its own borders.
Unfortunately, this will never happen because we have imbeciles and traitors in charge.