The War that Never Ends

[B-Man]

Good column by Cal Thomas:

Why let a little thing like an unprovoked attack by Hezbollah terrorists who fired shells into northern Israel from southern Lebanon in violation of a previous "peace agreement" (a 16-year-old Israeli boy was killed and five others wounded, including an infant) stall the road map to perdition, uh, peace?

The scenario is more predictable than a summer television rerun. Terrorists launch attacks against Israelis and are condemned, sometimes by their own leaders (wink, wink). Israel responds with an attack in an effort to root out the terrorists and stop further violence. The United States and others condemn the Israeli counterattack with far more vehemence than accorded the terrorists' attacks. American officials pressure Israel not to respond "disproportionately" (whatever that means) and pledge renewed efforts to make peace in the region. This means Israel must "do more" to satisfy the insatiable appetite of her enemies, who see the land already given up as merely an appetizer and the rest of Israel as the main course.

Two days after the incident in northern Israel and on the same day as two new homicide bombings struck at a shopping plaza in Rosh Haayin, near Tel Aviv, and at a bus stop in the West Bank, killing two Israelis, Secretary of State Colin Powell said, "we will not be stopped by bombs." Why let a little thing like war get in the way of peace? While the United States would not negotiate with those responsible for terror attacks on our soil, it has no problem forcing Israel into new and dangerous concessions with those who attack its soil.

Hezbollah's Al Manar TV reported that the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade claimed responsibility for the Rosh Haayin bombing, even naming the bomber, Khamis Ghazi Jarwan. The Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade is under the direct authority of Yasser Arafat, whose "prime minister" (Mahmoud Abbas) has been adopted by the Bush administration as the savior of the "peace process."

In his address to a group of Arab and Israeli students gathered in Maine at a "Seeds of Peace" camp, Colin Powell lapsed into a familiar view of humankind: "It is important that you get to know more about each other ... (to) get a better understanding of the concerns, the anxieties, the anguish, the fears, the hopes, the dreams that other young people such as you have regardless of what language you speak or what country you come from or (what) religion you hold."

This one sentence exposes the central flaw in Western thinking that our enemies skillfully exploit. It isn't "regardless" of religion. It is because of religion that the battle continues with only occasional letup to allow the killers to rearm. Three weeks at summer camp will not deter a people whose faith is in a God many of their religious leaders believe wants a shotgun marriage between mosque and state. Many of them are taught that the heavenly kingdom and the earthly one are linked and that it is their job to eliminate "infidels" who don't see as they do. No one who understands the substance behind this battle and the unchanging objectives of those who fight it could possibly believe that such a religious vision will be modified by "infidel" diplomats.

While American leaders mouth platitudes, Palestinian TV broadcast a music video (two days prior to the latest homicide bombings) that reinforced the doctrine that heavenly rewards await all who die for Allah. The video begins with scenes depicting a romance cut short when Israeli soldiers shoot the woman in the back. She immediately goes to heaven, where she joins other young women dressed in identical long white gowns - the "Maidens of Paradise." The maidens are dancing in water, a clear depiction of the afterlife in Islamic tradition. Later in the video, the man attempts to visit the woman's grave and soldiers also shoot him in the back. He is transported to heaven where he is reunited with the woman. See it for yourself at www.isratv.com/video/twolovers128.asx (http://www.isratv.com/video/twolovers128.asx)

Who among the believers would trade this promise for three weeks of summer camp and a speech by Colin Powell? That's why the war continues, not because of land, but because of the promise of paradise. What political doctrine can compete with that?

[MMMMMM]

...every word of it.

As for Hezbollah et al, even before 9/11 occurred I said that NATO, led by the USA, should S.W.A.T.-team out all the major terrorist organizations in the Middle East. Hezbollah is responsible for many fatal attacks on Americans overseas, and their slogan is "Death To America"--which slogan was recently reaffirmed by their leader Nasrallah.

If we didn't have North Korea to worry about I would say we should be in there right now, wiping out Hezbollah and all the other fanatic militants. Occupy the whole area for a while if that's what it takes. Maybe we should anyway, and take out North Korea's nuke labs with pre-emptive strikes and tell Kim if they retaliate or start a war over it, the war in Korea will be over in ONE day. I'm sure that little gargoyle would understand what THAT means...and he WOULD back down. The alternative is probably to face a Kim who is well-armed with plenty of nukes in a couple of years (actually the window of time is probably months only). Negotiations won't work because North Korea can simply say yes then go ahead with clandestine operations to build their nukes anyway. What this means is that even pre-emptive strikes won't be a guarantee because North Korea has hidden mountain labs and we don't know where they all are. So the only real answer is regime change in North Korea. Connect the dots and it's not that hard to see: it's just terrifying and we struggle to think there might be annother way. But there truly isn't unless we are willing to face the specter of a heavily nuked-up North Korea threatening us and Japan perpetually, and blackmailing the world, and selling nukes to al-Qaeda. The only answer is--sadly--to attack and take over North Korea and after it stabilizes turn it over to the South Koreans. It wouldn't take too long after that for the country to homogenize and heal and grow together towards prosperity. Most of the North Korean lower-level soldiers and civilians have no idea how prosperous South Korea is anyway, or how good they could have it once their Stalinist regime is gone. They live in an extremely insulated environment.

As for the Middle East: religious fanaticism and terrorism will never listen to reason. The only answer is to DEFEAT the terrorist organizations utterly and beyond question. That means demolishing their training camps and capturing or killing all their leaders. Daisy Cutters or MOABs all over Hezbollah's largest training camp would be a good place to start. If they want to chant "Death to America" and kill our people overseas we can show them what a bad idea that is.

Militant fanaticism is deadly and implacable. The process of proliferation of weapons of greater and greater destructive power can be slowed but cannot be stopped. If militant fanaticism cannot be controlled or tamed, the only answer is to take over those areas and replace it entirely.

I'm not advocating wars of aggression. But what many don't realize is that the militants have already declared war on us. They are not the kind to surrender when overmatched...or ever. The only answer is to wipe the militants out. And the rest of the Arab world needs to understand that we will not attack them for no reason, but if we are attacked the attackers will be obliterated.

There is no doubt that a huge bloody conflict between the forces of reason and civilization and the forces of superstition and fanaticism is shaping up (and indeed has already started). The only question is do we want to fight this battle on our terms or on theirs. Time is working against us as every week that passes brings the forces of irrational fanaticism closer to their dreams of having WMDs.

Also we must engage in nation-building in the areas where we wipe out the militants. The common people in those areas should see that our goal is to help rather than harm them, and that our enemies are the fanatical militants. They should also enjoy increased prosperity within 6 months to a year after we move into an area.

[David Steele]

The problem with a preemptive strike on N. Korea is that they are capable of instantly doing a hughe amount of damage to the population center of S. Korea and possibly some severe
damage to other countries. I have heard mentioned that more then 200,000 would die on the first day from the artillary pointed south from the border.

D.

[Zeno]

A preemptive strike at North Korea presents a very sticky problem. A limited strike just at the nuke facilities may work but the risks will be great. As David points out, the North does have a tremendous amount of firepower (mostly artillery) aimed at the south, primarily at Seoul. The north could devastate a large portion of this very densely populated and important city. We could not take out all the artillery in time with conventational weapons and nukes are out as the artillery placements are too close to the border.

One thing that is of concern is China. This is actually a key issue. A divided Korea is actually good for china, economically, politically and militarily. There is some price to pay for this but it is small compared to the overall strategic benefits. Over the last 50 years a divided Korea has been good for China. The Chinese have long standing issues with the Korean peninsula and a united Korea, with a strong economy and military, and western style democracy, would be another thorn in the side of China, like Taiwan. Or perceived as even worse than Taiwan, remember, China has a long land border with Korea that can be easily crossed in any number of places.

At least, I think that is how the leaders and policy makers in China would see the issue over the long term. Getting the Chinese to cooperated or put pressure on Korea for “our benefit” would be difficult if not impossible.

-Zeno

[MMMMMM]

The standard refrain is that war with North Korea would entail massive casualties in Seoul. If the North launches the attack, this is true. However James Woolsey, former director of the CIA, recently elaborated on a plan to strike North Korea's artillery bunkers pre-emptively, with 4000 precision guided munitions daily (in Iraq we only used 800/day), capable of sealing the caves the artillery is located in.

Here is an excerpt from the article written by James Woolsey and Thomas McInerney:

(excerpt)"It is not reasonable to limit the use of force to a surgical strike destroying Yongbyon. Although the facility would need to be destroyed, the possible existence of another plutonium reprocessing plant or of uranium-enrichment facilities, or of plutonium hidden elsewhere, makes it infeasible to limit the use of force to such a single objective. Moreover, military action against North Korea must protect South Korea from certain attack (particularly from artillery just north of the DMZ that can reach Seoul). In short, we must be prepared to win a war, not execute a strike.

U.S. and South Korean forces have spent nearly half a century preparing to fight and win such a war. We should not be intimidated by North Korea's much-discussed artillery. Around half of North Korea's 11,000-plus artillery pieces, some of them in caves, are in position to fire on Seoul. But all are vulnerable to stealth and precision weapons--e.g., caves can be sealed by accurate munitions.

Massive air power is the key to being able both to destroy Yongbyon and to protect South Korea from attack by missile or artillery. There is a significant number of hardened air bases available in South Korea and the South Koreans have an excellent air force of approximately 550 modern tactical aircraft. The U.S. should begin planning immediately to deploy the Patriot tactical ballistic missile defense system plus Aegis ships to South Korea and Japan, and also to reinforce our tactical air forces by moving in several air wings and aircraft carrier battle groups, together with the all-important surveillance aircraft and drones.

The goal of the planning should be to be prepared on short notice both to destroy the nuclear capabilities at Yongbyon and other key North Korean facilities and to protect South Korea against attack by destroying North Korean artillery and missile sites. Our stealth aircraft, equipped with precision bombs, and cruise missiles will be crucial--these weapons can be tailored to incinerate the WMD and minimize radiation leakage.

The key point is that the base infrastructure available in the region and the accessibility of North Korea from the sea should make it possible to generate around 4,000 sorties a day compared to the 800 a day that were so effective in Iraq. When one contemplates that the vast majority of these sorties would use precision munitions, and that surveillance aircraft would permit immediate targeting of artillery pieces and ballistic missile launch sites, we believe the use of air power in such a war would be swifter and more devastating than it was in Iraq. North Korea's geriatric air defenses--both fighter aircraft and missiles--would not last long. As the Iraqis understood when facing our air power, if you fly, you die.

Marine forces deployed off both coasts of North Korea could put both Pyongyang and Wonson at risk of rapid seizure, particularly given the fact that most of North Korea's armed forces are situated along the DMZ. With over 20 of the Army's 33 combat brigades now committed it would be necessary to call up additional Reserve and National Guard units. However, the U.S. forces that would have the greatest immediate effect are Expeditionary Air Forces and Carrier Battle Groups, most of which have now been removed from the Iraqi theater." (end excerpt)

For the full article, including a discussion of the reasons such a strike may be necessary, this link:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=9224