Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The West’s Response to Mass Murder: Pretty Lights
On the BBC today I heard an interview with a Belgian member of the EU parliament. (She had the wavery, unearthly voice of the Talosians who imprisoned Captain Pike.) Her prescription for a unified response going forward to deal with the repercussions of the emanating penumbras of the unpleasantness at the airport: coordination. The police services are coordinated now, but they must be coordinated more. Barriers that prevent coordination must be addressed, and uncoordinated situations must be solved, and this can be done with a concerted effort to coordinate. The host was somewhat exasperated, and noted that Belgium had a large population of individuals who had gone to ISIS-land and come back. What about them?
The MP had a ready answer. Why, the EU Parliament had passed strong measures that permitted them to follow these individuals. It permitted the police to look at them.
That was her term. I’m sure she meant “investigate,” but even so, why would this take a special act? Because automatic scrutiny of bad actors might be seen as discriminatory, marginalizing, alienating? The idea of revoking citizenship of anyone who larks off to Syria to join the Bloody-Moon Army seems simple enough. As does incarceration and deportation for any non-citizen who’s even remotely connected to a terrorist attack. Well your honor I knew he was up to something with all the meetings and the wires and the mysterious men who kept dropping by, and after the attack he asked me to hide him and go to the man who had the passports, and yes I did that. But you have to understand —
GAVEL BANG Five years. Next case.
Never happen. I’ve no doubt there are serious hard-cases in European law-enforcement and counter-terrorism who would love to go weapons-free, so to speak, on the threat — and do so without caring whether it abrades the sensibilities of the technocratic stratum whose moral preening over the virtues of the post-national multi-cultural European identity got everyone in this fix. But that’s not enough.
See, here’s the odd thing. ISIS claimed responsibility, right?
Don’t we know where ISIS is? Don’t you think we have a reasonable idea where their C&C HQs are in those cities?
I’m not talking about a cruise missile response, but a MOAB over an ISIS stronghold. It won’t make them stop, but that’s not the point. It would make them pay, which you might consider an adequate short-term response. Next time? Two MOABs, two cities. The collateral damage would be horrific. No doubt it would renew their enthusiasm. So next time they get three.
It’s brutal, yes, but there are precedents set by much-beloved Democratic presidents.
Eventually the point has to sink in: you pay. Even if it doesn’t, there’s less ISIS, which would seem to be a good thing in the long run.
Such responses, however, seem unlikely these days. Outre; too . . . Russian. Would you approve? Would you consider it descending to their level? Or is it best to absorb and mourn, coordinate and look, and be prepared for the next attack. By which I mean: they’d better have the Eiffel Tower programmed for all the European countries’ colors. You’d hate to have 400 people killed in a Swedish airport and not be able to call up the flag-profile file that night. I mean, people would think you didn’t care.
Published in General
We defeat ourselves in mucky circles of indecision and second-guessing. Kill, break, and dominate until the threat is impotent.
Or take it. I have no interest in paying rent in blood for what should be purchased.
In many different posts there have been comments about collateral vs. targeted civilian casualties. The Obama administration has made significant use of drone strikes, with resultant significant civilian casualties and received very little blowback from the usual suspects. Just an observation.
Regarding the problem writ large, one proactive step Western societies could take is to outlaw Wahhabism in our mosques and schools. It is hate speech and is indoctrinating the next generation of haters.
Finally, I do not care that Trump is not the most articulate person when speaking with the WaPo editorial board. Further, here is my own editorial note re his remarks on NATO, from my own piece, entitled Anne Applebaum Is Wrong, posted previously at this site:
“Only Poland this year joined the four other countries, out of 28 total NATO members, that are meeting the alliance’s goal of spending 2% of their gross domestic product on defense. The other four are the U.S., Great Britain, Greece and Estonia.”
http://www.wsj.com/articles/nato-calls-for-rise-in-defence-spending-by-alliance-members-1434978193
I also don’t care about previous remarks about women, his hair, Trump U., etc. His knee-jerk is to the correct position. There are many things I am deeply concerned about, the byproduct of which is horrifically on display in Brussels. Trump is not one of them.
I agree with you when fighting a nation state that can formally surrender, and the goal is the preservation of your nation state or the extension of its interests. It is quite different when there is limited means for formal end to hostilities, and the goal is the protection of individuals from terrorist harm globally. You undermine the goal of the war by committing harm to innocents in ways that are not applicable when fighting a traditional 20th century war. The morality of today’s war requires a different understanding.
Also, America is unique in the world. We can legitimately use power in ways others cannot because we hold ourselves to those standards. We are exceptional.
That would close 80% of the Mosques and Islamic schools in the US.
”
A large majority of mosques in the United States are led by Wahhabi clerics. Wahhabism is an extreme brand of Islam practiced dominantly in Saudi Arabia. According to Muslim estimates, up to 80 percent of mosques in the U.S. are owned, operated and led by Wahhabis.Apr 23, 2013”
RFBF, you are way behind. Your assumptions are about fifteen years old.
No need for dumb bombs – just use the pattern management feature of J-Series weapons. Pick a centroid, choose a pattern (4×4, 2×8, 2×2, etc) pick a dispersal and drop.
I once dropped a 4X4 that, including spread, gutted a 1 mile square.
Wouldn’t the Europeans complain about destroying a Belgan city?
What a great comment…
Why is anyone allowed to travel between Syria and the west? Is there some legitimate reason for this? Are there a whole lot of Syrian businessmen travelling to Belgium to negotiate a waffle franchise? Are there Syrian tourists, taking a little R and R from the civil war, who want to visit the Hotel de Ville? And why are Belgian kids allow to go to Syria at all? Any study abroad program in Syria is studying terrorism. Everyone knows this.
If we can establish safe zones for Syrian refugees in or around Syria, that would be great. Very humanitarian. But anyone trying to travel to or from Syria should be presumed a terrorist and treated accordingly.
#BringOurTerroristsHome
The only assumption I made in my analysis was that the goal of the war is to reduce or eliminate deaths from civilians from terrorists. If you have another war goal, please explain.
You are exactly correct BDB. Our lack of will in protecting our society, and our obvious hand-wringing approach to war, are only asking for more damage. So, let’s inject a little Trump attitude, bomb these barbarians back into submission and actually prosecute a war as if we mean it!
I don’t know who may have seen Bill Whittle’s video that responds to criticism of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki necessities, but it is fantastic.
I’ve been to the museum in Hiroshima, and when you walk in, just inside the door is a huge plaque that is inscribed with the intended message of the museum. One significant portion of that message maintains that the US had developed this powerful new weapon and we were just so anxious to try it that it was used on the Japanese just as an excuse to prove how it’s such a great weapon. No mention of its efficacy in ending the war. The Japanese people have an interesting culture and I loved working with them, but they are infamous for rewriting history.
Collateral damage? Let’s remember who causes it. The side that locates fighters and weaponry among civilian populations is at fault, not the side that must respond to the war they initiated.
Can someone please write a post reminding us what war is, and maybe reminisce about how one can be successfully prosecuted?
The goal of war would be to reduce American and Allied nations civilians from terrorists, and to break the enemy’s will to wage war. The terrorists can’t survive without support from their hosts.
Sorry Claire, I’m awake now…
Was having a discussion in Rome with my cousin trying to explain “American gun culture”. I brought up the fact that as an armed nation we are pretty immune to invasion. I mentioned the (now disputed) Yamamoto quote about ” a rifle behind every blade of grass”.
A young Japanese couple had overheard me, and interjected that ” Japan never would have invaded America”. I corrected them, that ” Japan had in fact invaded America during the Second World War”. They laughed and said I was basically nuts. I then told them about the invasion of the Aleutian Islands. They had never heard of it, and refused to believe me. This was a young, educated, sophisticated couple that spoke excellent English.
Fine. Just make a big enough area that they get the message. But dumb bombs are plentiful and cheap…
Amen, bro.
Let’s play a logic game.
(1) Let’s assume you had a weapon that killed every single Muslim on the planet with the touch of a button, except those who are part of the American and Allied nations. Over a billion dead with a button, terrorism then disappears.
Do you press it?
(2) Now let’s assume you had a weapon that killed every single Muslim TERRORIST on the planet with a touch of a button, regardless of where located. Unknown amount dead.
Do you press that button?
Option (1) is consistent with your war goal, while option (2) is not. Option (2) is consistent with my war goal, while option (1) is not. Most Americans would answer “no” to the first and a hesitant “yes” to the second. That tells you that the war goal as you defined it does not align with the war goal of the public.
You are using a 20th century view of war to analyze a struggle that just does not fit. I am not 15 years behind. You are 100 years behind.
…..and today, I read that Trump is a “potent tool” for jihadist recruiting. Oh, if only Trump weren’t King of Belgium, these bombings might never have happened! Oh, wait….
Melissa, to my knowledge, in the United States”hate speech” is not a legal concept. Hateful speech is just speech, which is protected. If “imminent danger” can be determined, that changes things. But the bar is high, as it should be.
I had two lovely exchange students with me in a History class at college. When we got to the subject of the Rape of Nanking they were completely unaware that such a thing had happened.
300,000 people murdered and the Japanese airbrushed it out of history because they were ashamed to admit they’d done such a thing. Truly amazing.
Oooooo. Now there’s a scary thought. Why, the UN might even pass a resolution.
The dread Strongly Worded Memo might be overkill.
Yep: and we should be infamous for letting them get away with. Compare German and Japanese writing their own history post WWII.
What? WHAT? I thought Saudis were our friends. And allies. And you say they are use the money from my truck’s gas tank to fund terrorism?
Who knew. We’d better check back to see where those 9/11 attackers came from–we might be surprised.
What I mean is that if we lose the moral high ground, you will find all of sudden that the airbase lease in Japan is not re-negotiated. Or the Saudis stop passing intelligence info. Or Turkey no longer allows use of their air space (which has happened in the past when the U.S. ignored their concerns). Or Eastern Europe cuts a deal with Russia against our interests. Or…you name it.
Beating your chest does not change the fact that being a global superpower requires consent and cooperation of the rest of the world, one way or another. The international community can exert pressure by blocking America from obtaining its foreign goals.
It’s not strongly worded letters.
Most “Educated” Japanese people are very ill informed about anything in history from about 1931 to 1945, it is simply not taught in school here.
From this article;
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21226068
Domo
but, but……. they make great beer!
I Wish That Bird Would Fly Away …
Yabbut, only when such “blocking” is seen as being in their own interest. And, yes, sometimes their internal politics makes them do stupid stuff too. The question: Is it a risk worth taking? Sometimes ‘shock and awe’ beats silk pants and foggy bottoms. And “tops”