Appearance of Weakness Hurts America

This is the kind of story that illustrates why the current defeatist and isolationist rhetoric is far more than just talk. The libs blather on about our "world image," but the image that really counts is the perception of whether we will fight if challenged.

We Americans are generally confident that America will rise and win any war it faces. But creating the impression overseas that America will run from a fight is precisely what brings danger to us.

It was the perception of weakness that brought us Pearl Harbor. It was the perception of weakness that encouraged Osama. It is the perception of weakness that today encourages terrorists to kill our troops in Iraq. And yet the liberals work hard every day to convince the world that we are on the verge of surrender. How many more must die before they learn?

Good point Ben. Just to add, the Japanese prime minister even knows that the most Americans don't have a backbone and would rather run and hide than fight. We are a "civic" society which means there are too many democraps and liberals that would sabotage their own country by whining and protesting about losses rather than see the big picture and fight. Luckily, they weren't as prevalent in WW2 as they are now or we would have tucked tail and ran then too.

A show of strength is no real discouragement to terrorists.

What brought us Pearl Harbor was an overconfident and zealous Japan. Before it, we *were* weak. Our armed forces were far from the most formidable in the world.

What brought us Osama was the training we gave him back in the days of the war between Russia and Afghanistan, the zeal behind his religious beliefs, and the complacency we had toward him and terrorism. There's a difference, however, between complacency and weakness (or the perception of weakness).

What's killing our troops in Iraq is the game of leap-frog we have to play... going back into places of the country that were cleared out to address new instances of insurgent activity... a fact of the situation brought about by insufficient troop levels that was itself brought about by a total miscalculation on the part of the Bush administration and Rumsfeld in the Pentagon about what we'd be facing after the removal of Saddam. You'll recall Rumsfeld said we'd just have to clean up a few "dead-enders"... when that wasn't the half of it.

The "Quote of the Day II" from Andrew Sullivan's site:

"I have never seen a Party so full of shit when it comes to supporting the military. They fight wars on the cheap and get people killed unnecessarily, instead of fighting with everything we’ve got under a coherant and cohesive strategy that ensures military victory. They let domestic politics trump military necessity, preferring to lie and shift the blame rather than address the problems and solve them like real men. They care about image rather than substance, empty rhetoric instead of courage, mediocrity instead of excellence, and machiavellian maneuvering instead of strong moral character. They have demonstrated nothing but contempt for us and for those that have served honorably in the past. They play us for suckers and weep crocodile tears at our deaths as their stock values rise. They are strangers to integrity and completely bereft of the basic values that we hold dear. They are without honor. They can go to hell.
If this is what Republicans mean by 'supporting the troops,' then they can by all means support the insurgents. We'd have a free and democratic Iraq by the end of the year."

- blogger "Stryker," on the blog, "Digital Warfighter." (By the way, this is the same guy who used to blog on the SgtStryker military blog. He was strongly pro-war. He's just become enraged by the way it has been conducted.)

6K: "Whining and protesting about losses" does not necessarily convey weakness.

But maybe you think the country would be better served if we just blissfully cheered our current "strategy" and ignorantly believed in the effectiveness of it.

nobody is cheering losses. But the left is not offering a strategy to counter. The only item they offer is that we should set a timetable. Everyone wants to get out but the difference is that those that are protesting don't care what the ramifications are to the iraqis, long term non-muslim nations, or perception of America.
Both the left and the right want the conflict to end, don't like the casualties, or want to stay indefinitely no matter how much you would like to believe otherwise. But the difference is that the right (generalizing so calm down) wants to make sure what we did has staying power while the left just cares about bringing soldiers home no matter the cost long term. So shortsighted and so infuriating. Unless you or anyone else can come up with a more effective strategy, you are doing nothing more than throwing tantrums. Why don't the left come up with a withdrawl strategy and timetable that deals effectively with sunni, shia, and kurd distrust and not tear the country apart? Because they can't. Protesting and whining about a war that is freeing a people or at least attempting to must be too much for spineless left to comprehend. If taiwan gets invaded, do you want to sit idly by and watch? If Korea erupts in fighting, I bet your best strategy is to let it burn out and see Koreans die rather than American soldiers. Your perspective is small.

Mark: "A show of strength is no real discouragement to terrorists."

Mark, that is so completely detached from reality that I don't even know where to begin, or whether there's any point in trying. All I can think to say is: When has anything other than a show of strength discouraged terrorists?

Mark: "What brought us Pearl Harbor was an overconfident and zealous Japan."

Yes, they were overconfident. Why? Because we projected weakness. Other countries believed that we wouldn't fight back. As FDR put it: "From Berlin, Rome, and Tokyo we have been described as a nation of weaklings and playboys who hire British or Russian or Chinese solders to do our fighting for us."

Mark: "Before it, we *were* weak. Our armed forces were far from the most formidable in the world."

We weren't weak at the time, because we had geographic barriers and the capacity to replace our losses. We didn't need to have large amounts of war materiel on hand to be strong. Our industrial capacity was well known. What wasn't well known-- and what the Japanese misperceived--- was our willingness to use that industrial capacity to fight. Imperial Japan gambled that Pearl Harbor would cause us to lose our will to fight. They knew full well that they couldn't win if we fought back. That's why Yamamoto said: "I fear that we have awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve."

As for Osama, his published observations about the US being a paper tiger and a weak horse are still well within recent memory. What brought us Osama wasn't just training or religious zeal. It was his belief that he had a chance at winning.

This is such basic stuff, I cannot fathom how anyone could fail to understand it. In the question of whether we will be attacked, the underlying reality is irrelevant. All that matters is what the potential attacker believes about the possible consequences of his attack. If he believes that he might gain something from attacking, then he might attack. If he believes that he cannot gain anything from attacking, then he won't attack.

This is why the modern treason of liberals is so serious: They are actively trying to convince our enemies that they might gain something by attacking us. By clamoring for surrender and retreat, the liberals are encouraging more attacks. They are encouraging our enemies to keep on fighting in the hope that American politics will flip, liberals will gain power, and the thugs can plunge millions of people back into death and misery, just like South Vietnam.

It's a very nice fantasy to imagine that if you're sweet and harmless, then the bad guys will leave you alone. But millions of lives are at stake here. We don't have time for nice fantasies. Tell your nice fantasy to the South Vietnamese.

6K: The Right hasn't come up with a terribly effective strategy either... unfortunately. All we're doing now is killing the insurgents in one area, having to send our forces to another area, and then having to go back to old areas later and kill insurgents all over again. We aren't keeping the insurgents out of an area permanently.

BB: Are terrorists and terrorist leaders surrendering en masse? Has their zeal and willingness to attack us waned? No they aren't and no it hasn't... so don't patronize me about the situation with terrorists.

BB said: "We weren't weak at the time, because we had geographic barriers and the capacity to replace our losses. We didn't need to have large amounts of war materiel on hand to be strong."

Yes, we were weak at the time. If we weren't, the geography would've been irrelevant and we would've perceived a need to have large amounts of war material on hand.

It's interesting to see you characterize a judgement of "need" in one instance (pre-Pearl Harbor WW2) as not a sign of being weak.... and another (terrorism) as being a sign of weakness or "actively trying to convince our enemies that they might gain something by attacking us", as you put it.

BB said: "What brought us Osama wasn't just training or religious zeal. It was his belief that he had a chance at winning.

All that matters is what the potential attacker believes about the possible consequences of his attack. If he believes that he might gain something from attacking, then he might attack. If he believes that he cannot gain anything from attacking, then he won't attack."

Terrorists always believe they have a chance even though they do not. It's called a self-reinforcing delusion. Terrorists are not like Imperial Japan. There is no terrorist Yamamoto counterpart. The conclusions about the enemy of our time, terrorism and terrorists, do not fit the mold of any other enemy from the past. Terrorists do not have concerns for the lives of ordinary citizens, they do not care about the losses they suffer.

Aside from that, terrorism has *always* had a poor track record of success. If we were dealing with people who really cared about their chances of success or their chance of gaining anything, there would be no terrorist attacks.

And so, there are two things that must be done simultaneously:

1.) kill the existing terrorists and...

2.) find ways to keep more from joining their ranks.

We've done a great job with number 1 and a pathetic job with number 2.

Everyone, on the Left and the Right, supported our attacks on Afghanistan and our search for Osama. The disconnect has always been Iraq. Enter our "flypaper" strategy and the ever-shifting rhetoric from the White House on what our purpose in Iraq is. First it was the removal of Saddam and the establishment of a free and democratic country. Then it was about fighting the terrorists there so they wouldn't attack us elsewhere (a lot of good that did... just ask the people in London and Jordan). And then it switched back to the first reason.

BB said: "This is why the modern treason of liberals is so serious: They are actively trying to convince our enemies that they might gain something by attacking us. By clamoring for surrender and retreat, the liberals are encouraging more attacks. They are encouraging our enemies to keep on fighting in the hope that American politics will flip, liberals will gain power, and the thugs can plunge millions of people back into death and misery, just like South Vietnam.

It's a very nice fantasy to imagine that if you're sweet and harmless, then the bad guys will leave you alone. But millions of lives are at stake here. We don't have time for nice fantasies. Tell your nice fantasy to the South Vietnamese."

I think it's nice that you accuse liberals of treason. It makes it that much easier to dismiss your strident musings on the subject as just another chapter in the ancient battle between liberals and conservatives. But, by all means, if you think people like me are traitors... please feel free to haul all of us into court, Sen. McCarthy.

Mark, I don't want to see you in court, I want to see you and your ilk in bodybags

JF: Aww.. come on. You hardly know me.

Mark: The right may not have what you consider effective strategy but at least it is better than "run away" strategy the left is promoting.

Also, you have GOT to be kidding about our need to find ways to discourage others from joining the terrorist groups.
1. Their entire civilization is built upon a false and severely depraved religion. People are indoctrinated from birth to hate and kill and celebrated when they kill - even innocents.
2. If fear of death cannot discourage people from joining up, how in the world do you expect them to respond to anything else. You obviously haven't read much about islam or you would understand that there is only one way to end it - kill or convert all infidels to islam. That is the only road to peace for them. No amount of concessions or dialogue will ever be enough and believing otherwise means you don't understand their ideaology or motives at all.

Terrorism does have success although you seem to be defining success as something direct instead of indirect. Directly, two buildings collapse and thousands lose their lives. Not enough success for you? How much time and cost is spent on security now because of terrorism. We have to change our lives, people live in fear, security is expensive and invasive. It has success and will continue to have success until we beat it into the ground. Running away will do nothing but encourage more to join. They understand that terrorism works, especially over time. Why don't you?

Mark said: "The Right hasn't come up with a terribly effective strategy either... unfortunately. All we're doing now is killing the insurgents in one area, having to send our forces to another area, and then having to go back to old areas later and kill insurgents all over again. We aren't keeping the insurgents out of an area permanently."

As my earlier post on the flypaper strategy explained, it may be a feature that we get to keep going back to kill more terrorists. It seems highly likely to me that our government's main goal is not to lose as few American troops as possible, but rather to win while losing as few troops as possible. Winning a war will always require fighting, and it may be the case that our leaders think the fighting that has been going on for the past two years is more to our benefit that not.

6K said: "Also, you have GOT to be kidding about our need to find ways to discourage others from joining the terrorist groups.
1. Their entire civilization is built upon a false and severely depraved religion. People are indoctrinated from birth to hate and kill and celebrated when they kill - even innocents.
2. If fear of death cannot discourage people from joining up, how in the world do you expect them to respond to anything else. You obviously haven't read much about islam or you would understand that there is only one way to end it - kill or convert all infidels to islam. That is the only road to peace for them. No amount of concessions or dialogue will ever be enough and believing otherwise means you don't understand their ideaology or motives at all."

If everything you said right there were true, there'd be no such thing as "moderates" - people who don't advocate the death and destruction of all who support Israel - when clearly there are quite a few moderates. Who's running Afghanistan? Who are we hoping the Iraqi people will elect into their government in a month? Who's there to be freed from the terrorists? Moderates and other non-terrorists.

Simply killing terrorists as they sprout up like weeds isn't enough. We have to start treating the disease as well instead of just eliminating the symptoms. If you don't think we can treat the disease, then you shouldn't be a supporter of our actions in Iraq. I've always supported the removal of Saddam and the establishment of a free democracy in his place, but I've always disagreed with how we chose to go about it.

6K said: "Terrorism does have success although you seem to be defining success as something direct instead of indirect. Directly, two buildings collapse and thousands lose their lives. Not enough success for you? How much time and cost is spent on security now because of terrorism. We have to change our lives, people live in fear, security is expensive and invasive. It has success and will continue to have success until we beat it into the ground. Running away will do nothing but encourage more to join. They understand that terrorism works, especially over time. Why don't you?"

The collapse of buildings, the loss of lives, the time and cost of security, etc. are not "success" to the terrorists. They're costs we all pay, as citizens, in one way or another, but they're not "success" to the terrorists. Success, to terrorists, would be us dropping our support for Israel and completely getting our economic and political affairs out of the Middle East. None of these things has happened or will happen. The goal of terrorism isn't directly to kill people and cause damage - it's to get us to change our minds and policies because of the death and destruction. None of that has happened or will happen. Everyone supported attacking Afghanistan and hunting for Osama.

Beat it into the ground? Oh please.. You don't beat an idea into the ground with guns and bombs. Ideas remain long after the tangible representations of them have perished. New terrorists are created - not at birth, but after schooling at madrassahs and social interactions with terrorist supporters - supporters who don't actively participate in terrorist activity.

I'm not suggesting we run away from terrorists and terrorism. All I'm saying is that we have to do more than just kill the existing terrorists; that we also have to find ways of preventing more from taking the places of those we kill.

Mark: "The goal of terrorism isn't directly to kill people and cause damage - it's to get us to change our minds and policies because of the death and destruction."

So doesn't that mean that the Democrats who want a policy change in Iraq are supporting the same goals as the terrorists? Doesn't that mean that the terrorists want the Democrats to win?

I honestly don't understand your position, Mark. First you say that a show of strength doesn't deter terrorists. Now you say that we shouldn't run away, but we should also address the root causes as well as the symptoms. So how do we do that? Maybe we should ask the moderate Muslims how best to silence the radicals. I'm betting that their suggestions would involve a show of strength and resolve. So again, it's the Democrats who are the problem.

Let's try something more basic: Do you agree that Osama, Zarquawi, etc. have as their goal worldwide Dar al-Islam, where you and I will be dead, converted, or dhimmis?

Mark:The collapse of buildings, the loss of lives, the time and cost of security, etc. are not "success" to the terrorists. They're costs we all pay, as citizens, in one way or another, but they're not "success" to the terrorists.

That statement alone tells me you have no clue. Just to spell it out for you - these costs are exactly what the left is pointing to for their reason for appeasement and run-away strategy. That is what the protesters and democrats have been hammering away for is policy change. You are truly blind to the terrorist "success" that has historical basis with Vietnam. At least they know history. Same application 30 years later - make casualties and deaths unpalatable to the American people and America will fold like a paper tiger.

By the way, moderate muslims are basically only one of two things A) not true muslims because they are not true to the Koran or B) only waiting until they have an advantage over the infidel per the Koran's teachings. Here is one article that may help you and this site has many more exposing islam for what it is. http://www.islamreview.com/articles/facade.shtml

BB said: "So doesn't that mean that the Democrats who want a policy change in Iraq are supporting the same goals as the terrorists? Doesn't that mean that the terrorists want the Democrats to win?"

No, that's not what it means at all. The "changing our minds and policies" I mentioned was a reference to the broader sense of our role and place in the world, including the Middle East. It has nothing to do with changing some details of our Iraq strategy.

BB said: "So how do we do that? Maybe we should ask the moderate Muslims how best to silence the radicals. I'm betting that their suggestions would involve a show of strength and resolve."

They may suggest something like that, but that would be just as ineffective at treating the disease as our one-armed approach to this War on Terrorism.

I don't know what the answer is. I do know, however, that simply killing terrorists as they surface or we become aware of them, by itself, is not going to weaken their resolve, curtail terrorist recruitment, or bring to an end the Terrorism chapter of our human civilization. Anyone who doesn't recognize that is missing a big piece of the puzzle.

BB said: "Do you agree that Osama, Zarquawi, etc. have as their goal worldwide Dar al-Islam, where you and I will be dead, converted, or dhimmis?"

That's probably a reasonable assessment of their overall goal.

6K said: "That statement alone tells me you have no clue. Just to spell it out for you - these costs are exactly what the left is pointing to for their reason for appeasement and run-away strategy. That is what the protesters and democrats have been hammering away for is policy change"

See my first paragraph in this reply.

6K said: "You are truly blind to the terrorist "success" that has historical basis with Vietnam. At least they know history. Same application 30 years later - make casualties and deaths unpalatable to the American people and America will fold like a paper tiger"

Let's separate the wheat from the chaff here. You're confusing the situation in Iraq with our overall approach to terrorism. Foreign fighters and terrorists (Al Qaeda, etc.) are not the thorn in the side of a free and democratic Iraq. The problem in Iraq, currently, is rooted in the tension between the Sunnis, Shiias, and Kurds as well as the ongoing violence from remaining Baathists. There's also a fair amount of American-presence-generated violence as well. A change in strategy and timely withdrawl of troops is not "appeasement and running away".

As for our overall approach to terrorism, no one is advocating appeasement and running away either. Remember - everyone supports invading Afghanistan and hunting Osama and Al Qaeda.

6K said: "By the way, moderate muslims are basically only one of two things A) not true muslims because they are not true to the Koran or B) only waiting until they have an advantage over the infidel per the Koran's teachings."

Okay. Go right ahead and tell that to President Bush. Tell him that he's working toward handing Iraq - and has already handed Afghanistan - over to a bunch of people who aren't true Muslims or biding their time to impose their own rendition of totalitarianism. You should be the most vocal opponent to the involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mark, I still don't have the slightest idea what your view is, except that you're sure that Bush did everything wrong. Do you have any coherent proposal about what we should do now? If not, then how can you criticize what we're doing?

Mark: "I do know, however, that simply killing terrorists as they surface or we become aware of them, by itself, is not going to weaken their resolve, curtail terrorist recruitment, or bring to an end the Terrorism chapter of our human civilization."

This one is really puzzling. It's kinda like that recurring headline in liberal newspapers: "Prisons are Full, but Crime Rate Drops." It never seems to occur to the libs that criminals who are in prison won't be committing any crimes for a while. Similarly, the terrorists we kill won't be committing any more terrorist acts. They can't, see. They're dead. Killing a terrorist is a sure way to weaken his resolve. And it just might discourage his friends from volunteering to take his place.

You seem to think that only utopian plans are worthwhile. If we can't eliminate terrorism, then there's no point trying to reduce it. By the same thinking, there's no point putting criminals in prison, because that won't 'solve' the problem of crime.

Until we have a clear roadmap to Utopia, I guess you're unwilling to do anything. But the rest of us would like to do what we can, however imperfectly. Iraq now has an imperfect government that is far better than the one that came before. Lots of terrorists are dead now, though not all of them. And we would like to scare the bejeebus out of the surviving terrorists, and the countries that would consider sponsoring them. But it's hard to do that when unhappy utopians insist on encouraging our enemies.

BB: Your capacity to completely misunderstand what I've clearly spelled out is truly impressive.

Consider the following quote of mine:

- "I'm not suggesting we run away from terrorists and terrorism. All I'm saying is that we have to do more than just kill the existing terrorists; that we also have to find ways of preventing more from taking the places of those we kill."

Where in there does it say that I think we shouldn't try to reduce terrorism or that I'm unwilling to do anything?

Now, on to other examples of your surprising and uncommon idiocy:

Ex. 1.) BB said: "Mark, I still don't have the slightest idea what your view is, except that you're sure that Bush did everything wrong. Do you have any coherent proposal about what we should do now? If not, then how can you criticize what we're doing?"

What have I said that leads you to conclude that I think "Bush did everything wrong"? Given the fact that I've only mentioned him once and in a totally different context it is baffling that you'd read into what I've said and extract such a faulty conclusion and then attach Bush to it.

I'm criticizing what we're doing because it's not enough; not enough to truly win. And while killing terrorists is an essential piece of the puzzle, it's not the only piece. It, alone, won't win this "War on Terrorism". Am I not correct on that?

Ex. 2.) BB said: "This one is really puzzling. It's kinda like that recurring headline in liberal newspapers: "Prisons are Full, but Crime Rate Drops." It never seems to occur to the libs that criminals who are in prison won't be committing any crimes for a while. Similarly, the terrorists we kill won't be committing any more terrorist acts. They can't, see. They're dead. Killing a terrorist is a sure way to weaken his resolve. And it just might discourage his friends from volunteering to take his place."

Killing terrorists has not weakened the resolve of Osama (if he's still alive), Al Qaeda, and other terrorist organizations. Have they been any less zealous in their proclamations and rallying speeches?

Killing terrorists has not been discouraging recruitment, either. How many times have we hunted and killed Al Qaeda's "Number 2 guy"? I've lost count. Who keeps filling that role? Survey says.. Other Terrorists! Where are these other terrorists coming from? Survey says.. the same places they've always come from!

Ex. 3.) BB said: "You seem to think that only utopian plans are worthwhile. If we can't eliminate terrorism, then there's no point trying to reduce it. By the same thinking, there's no point putting criminals in prison, because that won't 'solve' the problem of crime.

Until we have a clear roadmap to Utopia, I guess you're unwilling to do anything. But the rest of us would like to do what we can, however imperfectly. Iraq now has an imperfect government that is far better than the one that came before. Lots of terrorists are dead now, though not all of them. And we would like to scare the bejeebus out of the surviving terrorists, and the countries that would consider sponsoring them. But it's hard to do that when unhappy utopians insist on encouraging our enemies."

The hyperbole of those remarks aside, you've completely distorted what I've said to suit your own purposes. I, quite honestly, expected better of you.

Of course killing terrorists has a point. It's a way of preventing current and near-future terrorist attacks. I don't think it scares people away from terrorism, though. Being a terrorist and violently opposing us is, to the terrorists, a sure way to get all kinds of riches in the afterlife. I doubt that death.. or the threat of death.. is going to be of much concern to them.

I surmise that when the madrassahs stop churning out young men whose heads are ringing with radical Islam, there will be fewer people willing to take the places of the terrorists we've killed. Until that time, the weeds will still grow.. so to speak.