"What is this 'four gee dubya' nonsense you speak of???"


Friday the 13th certainly lived up to its ill-fated reputation this year. That was, of course and unfortunately, the day when Islamists- there is no point mincing words- attacked 6 separate targets all over the city of Paris and, in the process, killed at least 129, and wounded more than 300.

There is absolutely no love lost between me and the French. I don't particularly like them; their government and people, if anyone bothered to ask them, would probably say the same about me. And we're both perfectly fine with that. Let them do their thing, eating cheese and baguettes and waffling pretentiously about bad art and worse cinema, and I'll do mine.

But what happened that day was not something I would wish upon any nation, no matter how much I disagree with their culture, politics, or attitudes.

The response of both the French elites, and (if I might borrow a Kratmanism) the International Community Of The Ever-So-Caring And Sensitive to what was simply another battle in a centuries-long war has been tediously predictable and every bit as pointless, useless, and stupid as one could expect.

Instead of tackling the problem head-on, and calling the evil that stands there in front of them with blood-stained hands by its true name, those elites insist that this is not a war between Islam and the rest of civilisation, but between "radical elements" within their societies. They insist on fighting that evil with limited, ineffective means and weapons that show only a fundamental unseriousness and an utter lack of understanding of their enemy.

The elites of the French government think that Islamist barbarism can be countered using nothing more than airstrikes. In this folly, they are sadly not alone. Once again, those same elites, no matter their nationality, have failed to understand that air power, on its own, does not win wars.

Air superiority and supremacy, when combined with foot-sloggers doing the fighting and killing and dying on the ground, is fearfully effective against conventional military forces that obey a military culture of order and conduct. But against even a conventional enemy, air power alone simply inconveniences the enemy while enraging the civilian populace that suffer every time an attack fails to hit the target.

And against an unconventional enemy, which is precisely the category into which Islamists fall, air power is worse than useless. It is actively counterproductive.

There is nothing "ruthless" or "pitiless" about targeting a jihadist from 20,000 feet up and wiping him out using a Hellfire missile. It looks tremendously impressive on video, no question about that- but it also forces those conducting the drone strikes to lose the moral level of war, the level that the theorists behind the once-radical notion of "4th Generation Warfare" argue is by far the most important. All such air strikes do is anger the survivors, and harden their resolve to fight.

Given that those theorists- the likes of John Boyd, William S. Lind, and Martin Van Creveld- have proven to be eerily prescient about the crisis of legitimacy and authority faced by modern nation-states in a global, decentralised, fluid battlefield of cultures and ideas, it behooves us to pay attention to what they argued, and continue to argue, would be the most productive and useful ways to wage and win a war against Islam.

Lessons of the Past

The first thing that the French people, and the rest of us too, need to understand is that this is NOT a new war. This is a war that has been raging for fourteen centuries. It is a war between a culture that celebrates death over life and barbarity over civilisation, and all other cultures. It is a war that will continue as long as political Islam is permitted to exist and mistaken notions of "tolerance" toward it give it the room and opportunities it needs to spread its poison.

The excellent qualities of individual Muslims notwithstanding, the reality and fact is that they subscribe to a political ideology first- one with deeply suspect origins as, essentially, a Christian heresy that likely reverted back to a large number of ultra-Orthodox Jewish teachings with respect to the laws of God and His place within the plane of Man's existence. That ideology preaches violence toward non-believers, aggressive and militant expansion, lying where necessary to achieve one's ends, and offering no choices other than conversion, slavery, or death to those who disagree with them. They may not know these things, and if they do, they may choose to ignore them. But this is what they believe nonetheless.

And if Western society continues to be blind and stupid enough not to take the more hard-line among them at face value- which amounts to a very great many of their number, anywhere from a plurality to an outright majority of them- then we will find that the attacks in Paris will merely be a foretaste of the bloodshed to come.

This war is not, indeed, new. And the French should know this better than anyone.

It was a Frenchman, Charles "The Hammer" Martel, who stopped the first great expansion of Islam into Europe cold at the Battle of Tours in 732AD. His people were then full of martial vigour, strong, capable, and willing to die to defend their culture. They possessed military skills and prowess notably lacking in the lands of Visigothic Spain- a far more cultured and cosmopolitan part of the world in the late 7th Century, and as a consequence of this rather quick to fall to the invading armies of the Ummayyad Caliphate.

It is from Charles Martel that the French should learn their first lesson: you don't fight a war like this with pretty words. You fight it with deeds. And those deeds are likely to be bloody and terrible beyond measure. But they must be done, if Western civilisation is to be saved from itself and from the scourge of Islam.

The Laws of War

The second lesson that we need to learn follows directly from that first, and it is a simple one: when we talk about waging "pitiless" war against our enemies, we are, quite simply, full of horsesh*t. And our enemies know it.

What would a truly ruthless, meaningful response to those acts of Islamist aggression look like? Well, to borrow from LTC Kratman once again, it might look something like this:
Firstly, your armed forces would be culled of Moslems, with those in it interned. While this was going on, the police would have the DNA of the attackers analyzed. While the analysis was taking place the now culled armed forced, not least to include the Gendarmerie, would be surrounding the banlieus that contain the most Moslems. It would be announced that any Moslem found outside his or her home after dark, or more than 400 meters from it during the day, would be subject to summary execution. As wire was emplaced around one banlieu, thereby freeing up some troops, others would be encircled. Their orders would be to shoot anyone trying to leave though anyone would be allowed to enter. Food and water would be shut off. Then one by one you would go through the banliues, taking samples from everyone. Anyone whose DNA indicated they were related the attackers, male or female, old or newborn babe, would be killed on the spot. Then you would burn the mosques. You might potentially not kill the genetically implicated on the spot, but herd them into the mosques before you burn them. If you could identify one banlieu, or perhaps two or three, from which the bulk of the attackers originated or which provided the most non-combatant support, you would turn it into a modern Lidice or Ourador sur Glane. 
After that you would start processing the survivors for deportation, which deportation would be utterly pitiless, far worse than our “Trail of Tears,” and more like the Bataan Death March. Finally, assuming you were reasonably satisfied that ISIS / DAESH was behind this, you would use several of your not especially small number of nuclear weapons to destroy several of their strongholds and keep doing so until you ran out of nukes or targets.
That, as LTC Kratman says, is what a pitiless war looks like. It is the kind of war that the West long ago convinced itself that it could never fight again. And to a large extent, that is true; to fight that kind of war would require putting a large number of international treaties concerning battlefield and counterinsurgency tactics straight into the nearest industrial-grade woodchipper.

Such a response would be unthinkable according to our modern, "enlightened" standards of waging war. Most of you reading this would be utterly sickened by the very idea of using such methods. Yet those are precisely the methods that ensure survival in the face of an unyielding, barbaric enemy that is willing to use any means necessary to achieve its ends.

And as LTC Kratman is so (rightly) fond of saying, "Survival cancels out programming". (I get the distinct feeling that someday he's going to sue me for copyright infringement.)

These notions elicit pretty much the same reaction among the right-on progressive elite that governs France, and pretty much every other Western nation, that a vampire has to sunlight. To even think about such things inspires utter horror in the hearts of every tolerant, peace-loving Frenchman, every European, committed to the long-lasting fantasy of a Europe without war. Never mind that such a Europe is impossible because its existence is predicated upon suspending the laws that govern human nature- it is a beautiful dream nonetheless, and one of the tragic realities of the human condition is that our dreams tend to die badly, and take many of us with them when they do.

Yet that response is squarely within the limits allowed by the Laws of War- LTC Kratman himself would know, given that he has written two books specifically designed to see what would happen if an atrocity on the scale of the Paris attacks, or- God help us- 9/11 were ever met with a cold-blooded, ruthless, "pitiless" response that actually applied those very Laws to the enemy trying to destroy us.

This is not, by the way, a sin unique to the French. The entire Western world has been guilty of it for the past generation or more. And that is because the West has, to a great extent, ceased to have any real purpose or point to its existence.

Yet there are still many aspects of the West that are worth saving. And if we are serious about saving them, what we need to understand is that the Laws of War exist for a reason. They exist in order to permit a culture that is actually serious about defending itself, to do so without sacrificing order and human decency to madness and blood-lust.

The Laws of War are brutal, to be sure. But they are just. They command mercy for those who conduct themselves honourably and restrict themselves to fighting according to recognisable rules that attempt to spare the weakest of us from the horrors of war- and they command merciless, terrible punishment for those who break those rules. They are, indeed, laws- reason without passion, mercy without folly.

And it is well past time that we realised that the opponents we are fighting recognise no law but their own. They will not fight by our rules. They will not abide by our codes of honour. They do not believe that war is something to be fought "out there", away from women and children and the elderly.

That is the measure of our enemy. That is the measure of his resolve. And that is what we are up against.

We cannot win such a war if we are willing on the one hand to turn previously "moderate" Muslims against us by using drone and bomb strikes on targets that cause severe collateral damage, and on the other let hundreds of thousands, even millions, of those very same Muslims into our borders. We cannot fight such an enemy contrary to the way that the Laws of War say we should fight, when that same enemy refuses to obey those same laws in the first place.

If that is how we are going to fight to save Western civilisation, we might as well surrender right now, because it is overwhelmingly obvious that we are not serious about this fight.

Winning Without Losing Our Souls

The third, and most painful, lesson that follows from what happened in Paris is that, no matter what happens, this war is going to be far uglier than anything that came before it.

As LTC Kratman pointed out in his preface to William S. Lind's piece on 4GW within the collection, Riding the Red Horse, Vol. 1, there are basically only two ways to win a 4th Generation war.

The first is de-escalation, which Mr. Lind has discussed extensively in his work, with references to the successes that the Marine Corps saw in Iraq when adopting a "policing" approach to dealing with the local population instead of the brute-force "shock and awe" tactics of much (but not all) of the Army. Mr. Lind has also referred to the British Occupation of Northern Ireland as a favourable example of how to successfully fight a 4GW conflict.

There are two major issues with this path to victory in the context of the current conflict.

First and foremost is the fact that this approach requires the Western powers to actively occupy Muslim lands. Now, in a conventional war against conventional armies, the overwhelming technological and logistical superiority of the US and European militaries- far more so the case with the former than the latter, perhaps- would likely ensure victory for the Western powers. But after that, those same powers would be stuck administering an empire. And that is something that no modern Western power has the stomach to do.

You see, in order to successfully have an empire, you have to have a strong, virile culture that is actively interested in reproducing. This describes precisely none of the modern Western powers, including the USA- which, once you strip out the Hispanic immigration and birth rates from the overall US birth rate, looks very much like a European nation in terms of population dynamics.

Put it another way: there is a very damn good reason why the British Raj consisted of, basically, 100,000 Brits ruling over a country of 300 million Hindus and Muslims before Partition in 1947.

Second, occupation pre-supposes the willingness to take casualties in the process. The British were willing, and able, to do this when they established the greatest empire the world has ever seen. Their modern descendants have no stomach for seeing their sons and daughters returning in coffins. Nor should they. What gain is there to be had from venturing forth into heathen lands to carry the "white man's burden"?

So if conquest and then de-escalation is out, what is the alternative?

Annihilation.

And now we see the true horror that is before us. In order to win this war, we have to choose between two equally unthinkable alternatives.

Either the West rallies together- yeah, I know, not gonna happen, you can't get Americans and Russians to agree on what to eat for breakfast, let alone whether to march to war against Islam- and crushes Islam on the battlefield, and then gets stuck occupying Islamic lands and fighting a never-ending insurgency for the rest of time in order to avoid inflicting further damage to civilian life and property. Or the West gets serious about wiping Islam out from within its own borders, and then proceeds to wipe it out everywhere else.

I do not argue in favour of either alternative. Contrary to what some might think, I am very much against mass killings, deportations, and concentration camps.

But I will say this: the reason we are faced with this awful choice is because our forefathers made the galactically stupid decision to let Islam in, unchecked, to the West's borders, in the name of an insane experiment in multiculturalism that is now blowing up, quite literally, in our faces.

And the longer we delay the day of reckoning, the more terrible the choice will finally become.

The only way to win this war without losing our souls is to present a clear message to dar al-Islam: your borders do not extend into ours.

There is yet time to avoid bloodshed on a mass scale, but only if the West gets serious about defending its own borders and does away with these fantastically stupid notions of borderless states and free passage of people between nations. Already, forced repatriation is being seriously considered as an actual policy choice (and rightly so) by politicians on both sides of the Pond. How many more incidents like Paris do you suppose it will take for the French and the Germans in particular to forget all of their warm and fuzzy talk of peace and brotherly love and replace it with, as John Ringo might say, "Teutonic efficiency" in driving out those who are not like them?

The key question facing us in fighting this war is, how do we fight their tactics and their objectives without becoming like them?

The full answer to that question is beyond my expertise, limited as it is. But what is becoming very clear is that the current objective of, basically, doing sod-all in the face of wanton aggression, is tantamount to surrender by suicide.

Comments

Popular Posts