WE'VE BEEN IN AFGHANISTAN SINCE 2001: I BLAME BUSH!

NOT ONLY BUSH, BUT BUSH AND OTHER MODERATES AND THE WHOLE DAMN ENTIRE WAY WE'VE FOUGHT WW4 - PERHAPS GOING BACK TO 1979 AND OUR FAILURE TO BACK THE SHAH.

CALL IT RESTRAINED. CALL IT MODERATE.

OR CALL IT WHAT IT IS: POLITICALLY CORRECT AND TOTALLY HALF-ASSED.

• FROM DRONES
  
• TO AIR MARSHALS

• FROM "NO-PROFILING"
  
• TO CIVILIAN TRIALS FOR DETAINEES/ENEMY COMBATANTS AND JIHADO-TERRORISTS

EXCEPT FOR THE STRAIGHT-ON MILITARY ATTACKS ON AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ, IT'S BEEN ONE PC HALF-MEASURE AFTER ANOTHER.

EVER SINCE RIGHT AFTER THE TALIBAN FELL, WE'VE BEEN HALF-ASSED.

SINCE WE HAD BIN LADEN CORNERED, WE HAVE JUST NOT BEEN WILLING TO FOLLOW THROUGH WITH THE FINAL COUP DE GRACE.

NOT IN TORA BORA, AND THEN - A FEW YEARS LATER - NOT IN IRAQ FOR A LONG TIME TOO.

[A PETRAEUS-LIKE SURGE, IN WHICH WE TARGETED ALL THE BAD GUYS (INSTEAD OF LETTING THEM LINGER AS IF THEY'D BECOME GOOD GUYS!), COULD HAVE BEGUN AS SOON AS BAGHDAD WAS TAKEN.

AND WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH MORE FORCEFUL WITH TURKEY BEFORE THE IRAQ WAR, TOO - AND DEMANDED THEY LET US TO USE TURKEY FOR AN INVASION AS A CONDITION FOR REMAINING IN NATO!]

LOOKING BACK I BELIEVE THAT THE PC HALF-ASSERY BEGAN IN 2001:

Bush should have nuked Tora Bora in 2001.

• Bush could have erased the Taliban and al Qaeda in one fell swoop and sent the best, the most awesome and the most powerful message possible to anyone who would attack us: "Don't tread on us; we will respond without limit!"

• Saddam would've disarmed, disbanded the Baath Party, re-registered as a libertarian and converted to Buddhism.

• Muslim states, recognizing the existential threat, would've seriously cracked down on the "radicals" in their midst - as Egypt mostly does. And this existential threat on Muslim nation states would have been translated into them infiltrating and demolishing the jihadists and it would have thus become the deterrent that nukes had been among reasonable nations of the West during the Cold War.
  

But Bush was and remains a PC moderate who was unwilling to do what FDR and Truman did: fight total war, no holds barred.

As a result of Bush's half-measures and efforts to fight a "war of moderation" while propagandizing on behalf of Islam as if it were a "religion of peace", we are bogged down in a war of attrition in the lawless tribal regions of Afghanistan for the 9th year.

As a result of Bush's half-measures and our unwillingness to use our most awful weapons, we have CIA agents in Afghanistan on the border of Pakistan on the border directing drone attacks in an attempt to counter-attack against a global enemy - teeming with millions of adherents pledged to use genocide to further their creed's global ambitions - with pin-point pin-pricks against the Taliban leadership and al Qaeda leadership.

It idiotically plays into the enemy's asymmetric strategy, unnecessarily giving away huge advantages to the enemy.

We shouldn't fight on their terms if fighting on our terms is to our advantage.

A nuke in November of 2001 would've ended the GWOT with a victory for the good guys right then and there. We'd have ZERO troops and ZERO CIA agents in Afghanistan - or anywhere else - fighting these 12th Century islamo-maniacs.

YES: I AM SAYING WE SHOULD USE NUCLEAR BOMBS!

Truman nuked Japan - and not only won the war, but saved about 20 million lives --- most of them Japanese.

FDR started the Manhattan Project and built our nukes ASAP in order to get them before the enemy - and to use them on the enemy before the enemy could use them on us.

FDR was right to do so.

FDR - and Truman - wanted to win at all costs.

That's the right way to fight a war.

Thinking you can win a war using half-measures violates a law of physics: we must be at least as violent as the enemy.

Newton:

Newton's third law: law of reciprocal actions

Newton's Third Law.

Lex iii: actioni contrariam semper et æqualem esse reactionem: sive corporum duorum actiones in se mutuo semper esse æquales et in partes contrarias dirigi.

''To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions''.

If we don't use superior force to the enemy, then we will either remain in a constant state of war or we will begin to lose and continue to lose.

And in a war in which we have a lot to lose and very high costs for defending ourselves - and the enemy has nothing to lose and no assets to protect (that;s the basic asymmetry) - using a strategy of half-measures makes zero sense.

The jihadist enemy can use and has used a few hundred dollars worth of PETN taped in the underwear of one jihadist and force us to deploy thousands and spend billions of dollars. Billions.

This is a losing game for us, not them.

If we want to win, then we need to fight a total war.

And fight it against the enemy wherever they are.

It may no longer be PC, but it's how wars are won.

Jettisoning PC would also allow everyone to acknowledge who the enemy REALLY is: Islam. Not every Muslim, but the core creed at the very center of Islam.

Bin Laden and Zawahiri are NOT APOSTATES; they are just the most radically DEVOUT Muslims.

Wafa Sultan and Irshad Manji agree: the radicals are literally correct in how they practice Islam and jihad.

The entire history of Islam - and how it's currently practiced by its most devout members - proves that it is a violent, misogynistic and genocidal martial creed.

That's why it should be erased from the face of the earth and eradicated from the annals of humanity.

Islam should be no more tolerated than Nazism.

In fact: Islam is worse than Nazism.

Islam is the most genocidal creed of all time and has killed more people than any other ideology in all of human history.

It's long passed time it was demolished.

By whatever means necessary.

Or we can keep doing what "reasonable moderates" say we should do - which amounts to nothing more than putting your head in the sand and crossing your fingers - and putting your faith in a surge of air marshals and bureaucrats connecting the dots.

You want some dots to connect?

I'll give you some dots to connect:

• islam
• mecca
• the koran
• genocide

It's them or us.

I say we should erase them from the face of the earth.

Start with dropping a few small nukes on the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

Then - if they don't get the message - a few small nukes on Yemen. Then a few small ones on Somalia. Then on Iran and its stooges. Then Algeria and so on. I think the Muslim world will get the message after the first nuke goes off on top of the Taliban: change and eradicate of your radicals or get nuked.

And the change would have to include full equal human rights for women.

Islam is the root cause of jihado-terror and Islamo-misogyny is the medium in which it grows: boys who learn that it's honorable to murder sisters and aunts and mothers and wives will of course think nothing of committing genocide against infidels.

These are harsh ultimatums, but necessary to save the Free World from Islamification.

When Bush said, "Your either with us or you are with the terrorists" he was NOT being PC, but he was correct and he was articulating a good strategy - one that wins, too.

Bush was also very popular for saying. We felt he meant it.

It's too bad he didn't follow through on it.

It's too bad Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and Turkey and Syria have been allowed to play double games. Perhaps even Jordan, too.

A nuke on Tora Bora in 2001 would've straightened them all out.

In a similar situation, FDR would've done it.

In a similar situation, Truman did do it. It was the moral and proper thing for Truman to do;(more on the morality of using nukes HERE and HERE and HERE.)

What was moral to do in 1945 may not be PC now, but it is still moral today: it is moral to use any weaponry which will end the war in favor of the Free World.

Using nukes would lead to a quicker victory with less casualties on our side, and ultimately save lives and liberate millions from islamo-fascism.

Do you think it is more moral if we slowly allow the West to be bankrupted and islamified!?

Is it more moral to send our best to fight in the MOST hellish regions of the world - places where the outcomes cannot be certain, but the casualties are?!

Do you think you are morally superior if you follow a strategy which must drag out the war and waste trillions of dollars and the create havoc and hardship in the lives of millions of your fellow citizens!?

Is it smarter to send our best CIA agents to remote villages of eastern Afghanistan where they are targets of double agents and locals?!

A nuke on Tora Bora in 11/01 would've probably meant that we would have ZERO troops in Afghanistan now - and NO CIA AGENTS EITHER.

For the choice is not really between a short war and a long war. It's between losing a war and winning:

The choice is ours: we can either lose a long war of attrition or win a short total war.

We do not have an unlimited time to decide, either:

If we dither until Iran has a nukes, then we've lost both.

We must do better than Bush did or Obama is doing:

• BUSH WAS HALF-ASSED.

• OBAMA DITHERS - AT BEST.

• BOTH ARE LOSING STRATEGIES.

LET'S DO WHATEVER IT TAKERS TO WIN.

NO HOLDS BARRED. INCLUDING USING NUKES PREEMPTIVELY.

IT SHOULD NEITHER BE UNTHINKABLE OR UNSPEAKABLE TO ADVOCATE DOING WHATEVER MUST BE DONE ON ORDER TO WIN.

Our civilization and the future of the Free World are worth it.

But then maybe you'd prefer the world to become like Talibanistan for 1000 years?

We'd produce a lot less CO2...