Archive for the 'War & Warfare' Category

Over at the incomparable Michelle Malkin’s home page she hat tips “Alarming News” for catching the Baltimore Sun for scolding for “inappropriate glee” at the death of Al-Zarqawi.  Well, sign me up for some … and for some more too.  My son will not deploy for another half year or so, but I had already prayed for the death of Zarqawi, hoping that Iraq would be a safer place for him and his brothers when he gets there.  In case you have forgotten what an imprecatory prayer is, go catch Doug Giles on this subject.  We should be praying more of them.  In fact, here is a short one right now.

Lord, please allow us to succeed in killing the enemy.  Root him out from his hiding places, cause him to starve, to experience misery, to fail in all of his evil intentions, and to become a laughingstock to the world.  Lord, give us success in smiting our enemies with a great blow so that this evil will be removed from us.

Glee?  I am overjoyed at the death of the terrorists.  Whew!  Perhaps I will pray more of these imprecatory prayers!

Various blogs have turned logic on its head (especially over at the Daily Kos) by implying that it was better that Zarqawi was be alive because other leaders will just take his place and he will turn into a Martyr. Okay. Think about this argument for a moment. The argument is essentially that it is better not to kill the enemy because there might be more of them. What kind of contorted logic wins a war by keeping the enemy alive? Wonder what General George Patton would have thought of that argument?

It is always better in war that your enemy be dead than alive (unless you need intelligence from him and you believe that you will not increase the chances of escape while attempting to capture him compared to outright killing of the enemy). Further, they (i.e., Al-Qaida in Iraq) have lost their prince (as Usama called him), the top leadership available to the increasingly desperate group. It is also not at all obvious – even if Zarqawi had already designated his replacement – that this new leader will be able to hold them together. Only recently coalition forces captured documents believed to be the work of senior Al-Qaida leadership in the Baghdad area. These documents show a fractured, disorganized, ill-equiped and demoralized group of terrorists. They do not sound like an organization which is enjoying the loss of its membership, especially its senior leadership. Nor does it sound like an organization which will easily be able to bounce back. Don’t count them out, but right now it appears that they are on the mat. While the entire document is worth reading, selected quotes follow:

It has been proven that the Shiites have a power and influence in Baghdad that cannot be taken lightly, particularly when the power of the Ministries of Interior and Defense is given to them, compared with the power of the mujahidin in Baghdad. During a military confrontation, they will be in a better position because they represent the power of the state along with the power of the popular militias. Most of the mujahidin power lies in surprise attacks (hit and run) or setting up explosive charges and booby traps. This is a different matter than a battle with organized forces that possess machinery and suitable communications networks. Thus, what is fixed in the minds of the Shiite and Sunni population is that the Shiites are stronger in Baghdad and closer to controlling it while the mujahidin (who represent the backbone of the Sunni people) are not considered more than a daily annoyance to the Shiite government. The only power the mujahidin have is what they have already demonstrated in hunting down drifted patrols and taking sniper shots at those patrol members who stray far from their patrols, or planting booby traps among the citizens and hiding among them in the hope that the explosions will injure an American or members of the government. In other words, these activities could be understood as hitting the scared and the hiding ones, which is an image that requires a concerted effort to change, as well as Allah’s wisdom. The strength of the brothers in Baghdad is built mainly on booby trapped cars, and most of the mujahidin groups in Baghdad are generally groups of assassin without any organized military capabilities.There is a clear absence of organization among the groups of the brothers in Baghdad, whether at the leadership level in Baghdad, the brigade leaders, or their groups therein. Coordination among them is very difficult, which appears clearly when the group undertake a join operations.The policy followed by the brothers in Baghdad is a media oriented policy without a clear comprehensive plan to capture an area or an enemy center. Other word, the significance of the strategy of their work is to show in the media that the American and the government do not control the situation and there is resistance against them. This policy dragged us to the type of operations that are attracted to the media, and we go to the streets from time to time for more possible noisy operations which follow the same direction.This direction has large positive effects; however, being preoccupied with it alone delays more important operations such as taking control of some areas, preserving it and assuming power in Baghdad (for example, taking control of a university, a hospital, or a Sunni religious site).At the same time, the Americans and the Government were able to absorb our painful blows, sustain them, compensate their losses with new replacements, and follow strategic plans which allowed them in the past few years to take control of Baghdad as well as other areas one after the other. That is why every year is worse than the previous year as far as the Mujahidin’s control and influence over Baghdad.The role that the Islamic party and the Islamic Scholars Committee play in numbing the Sunni people through the media is a dangerous role. It has been proven from the course of the events that the American investment in the Party and the Committee were not in vain. In spite of the gravity of the events, they were able to calm down the Sunni people, justify the enemy deeds, and give the enemy the opportunity to do more work without any recourse and supervision. This situation stemmed from two matters:First, their media power is presented by their special radio and TV stations as the sole Sunni information source, coupled with our weak media which is confined mainly to the Internet, without a flyer or newspaper to present these events.Second, in the course of their control of the majority of the speakers at mosques who convert right into wrong and wrong into right, and present Islam in a sinful manner and sins in a Muslim manner. At the same time we did not have any positive impact or benefits from our operations.The National Guard status is frequently raised and whether they belong to the Sunnis or Shiites. Too much talk is around whether we belong to them or not, or should we strike and kill their men or not?It is believed that this matter serves the Americans very well. I believe that the Committee and the Party are pushing this issue because they want to have an influence, similar to the Mujahidin’s. When and if a Sunni units from the National Guard are formed, and begin to compete with the mujahidin and squeeze them, we will have a problem; we either let them go beyond the limits or fight them and risk inciting the Sunnis against us through the Party’s and the Committee’s channels.(Salah), the military commander of Baghdad (he used to be the commander of the Rassafah County and still is) is a courageous young man with a good determination but he has little and simple experience in the military field and does not have a clear vision about the current stage and how to deal with it Most of his work at al-Rassafah County is to take cars to the Jubur Arab Tribes, convert them into booby traps and take them back inside Baghdad for explosion. And the more booby trap cars he makes, the more success he has. This alone is not a work plan and we do not benefit from it in the medium range let alone the long range.

(Salah): The current commander of Northern al-Karkh (Abu-Huda) is very concerned because of his deteriorating security situation caused by being pursued by the Americans, since they have his picture and voice print. Therefore, his movement is very restricted and he is unable to do anything here. We should remove him from Baghdad to a location where he can work easier; otherwise he is closer to become totally ineffective. I know nothing about his past military experience or organizational skills.

The killer is finally dead.  Here is a huge difference between Christianity and Islam.  Upon hearing of their leader’s death, Al-Qaida in Iraq said the following:

“The death of our leaders is life for us.  It will only increase our persistence in continuing holy war so that the word of God will be supreme.”

There you have it.  Radical Islam in all its glory.  The spread of their “gospel” by killing others.  No salvation … no forgiveness … no compassion … no teaching … no work by the Holy Spirit (because they do not know Him).  Just war and killing and more killing.

Update: The pretty pictures they are showing over at the major news outlets does not show the true story.  He met a violent end.  This should be the way of all such killers and terrorists.

Update #2: Hat tip to Right Wing News for the prediction on the Strategy Page that he would meet his demise soon.  Yesterday they predicted that Zarqawi would go out in a blaze of glory, become another martyr, and be out of the way of the organization because he had become a hinderance.  Just one problem.  If he has been a hinderance, then he has been so all along.  The beheadings, the violence to fellow Muslims, the sectarian fighting, the allegations and accusations against other branches of Al-Qaida, leading to the rebukes by Usama … these have been there all along.  Why now?  If he is a hinderance, then he hasn’t just recently become so.  I just don’t buy it – not yet.  I think that this is a win for the U.S. and a loss for Al-Qaida.  The organization becomes weaker as a result of this.  Unless I see evidence that the “real” leadership planned such a move, I will continue to believe that he was the head of the organization.  Besides, I just don’t think that they are organized enough to pull something like this off.

Update #3: Juan Cole notes the following:

… groups in Fallujah have launched attacks on Zarqawi followers there after the latter attacked the al-Husain Mosque in the Askari quarter two days ago, destroying the tomb of the founder of the mosque within it. (Salafis influenced by Saudi Wahhabism despise attendance at saints tombs, insisting on a Protestant-like elimination of all intermediaries between human beings and God. Many Islamists in Fallujah are actually Sufis, who value saints in the way rural Catholics do.) An attempt by the radical Salafis to destroy the mosque (on the grounds that it had been tainted with polytheism) was stopped by the “1920 Revolution Brigades,” a local ex-Baathist group. There was a running gun battle between the two.

Zarqawi’s group had also tried two days ago to attack a Fallujah police station, but they were repulsed by local tribal youth. The battle left two cars burned and 4 dead from the tribe of Al-Bu `Isa.

This makes better sense to me than the notion that his own people took him out by giving Centcom intelligence.  Zarqawi was the head of Al-Qaida in Iraq.  He was not the head of what the U.S. troops there call the “moog.”  On the other hand, there is indication that the Jordanians were also involved in this.  It will piece together over time.

Update #4: The video of the bomb that killed the killer is here.

I have a really dark daydream of a couple of grim-looking men coming to my door one day to inform me that my son has perished in Iraq (he has not yet deployed).  I will doubtless have a bumpy ride through this ordeal.  But I know what document my son signed as he enlisted.  I go into his room and look at it frequently.  It is called the “Oath of Enlistment.”  It has certain things that my son swore to do, and we had some serious discussions prior to him signing about what a solemn duty he was undertaking, with potential for loss of limbs or life.

An Army officer, it seems, has refused orders to deploy to Iraq.  I am sure that the anti-war zealots will hail him as their new poster boy.  In my opinion, he is a liar.  He swore to do certain things and then refused.  This makes him a liar.  It is as simple as that.

This post is updated (to add a trackback to Right Wing News and a little comment) for that ridiculous position on war over at the Daily Kos.  Calvin and Aquinas take a very different view — a view in which a warrior can engage in “good wars.”  I’ll side with Calvin instead of Daily Kos.

ORIGINAL POST BELOW:

Nothing can be better than to let John Calvin and Thomas Aquinas speak for themselves on the issue of war.  These studies below are the best that can be found, in my opinion.

This is taken from “Institutes of the Christian Religion,” Book IV, Chapter 20, Sections 11 and 12:

As it is sometimes necessary for kings and states to take up arms in order to execute public vengeance, the reason assigned furnishes us with the means of estimating how far the wars which are thus undertaken are lawful. For if power has been given them to maintain the tranquillity of their subjects, repress the seditious movements of the turbulent, assist those who are violently oppressed, and animadvert on crimes, can they rise it more opportunely than in repressing the fury of him who disturbs both the ease of individuals and the common tranquillity of all; who excites seditious tumult, and perpetrates acts of violent oppression and gross wrongs? If it becomes them to be the guardians and maintainers of the laws, they must repress the attempts of all alike by whose criminal conduct the discipline of the laws is impaired. Nay, if they justly punish those robbers whose injuries have been inflicted only on a few, will they allow the whole country to be robbed and devastated with impunity? Since it makes no difference whether it is by a king or by the lowest of the people that a hostile and devastating inroad is made into a district over which they have no authority, all alike are to be regarded and punished as robbers. Natural equity and duty, therefore, demand that princes be armed not only to repress private crimes by judicial inflictions, but to defend the subjects committed to their guardianship whenever they are hostilely assailed. Such even the Holy Spirit, in many passages of Scripture, declares to be lawful.

But if it is objected that in the New Testament there is no passage or example teaching that war is lawful for Christians, I answer, first, that the reason for carrying on war, which anciently existed, still exists in the present day, and that, on the other hand, there is no ground for debarring, magistrates from the defence of those under them; And, secondly, that in the Apostolical writings we are not to look for a distinct exposition of those matters, their object being not to form a civil polity but to establish the spiritual kingdom of Christ; lastly, that there also it is indicated, in passing, that our Saviour, by his advent, made no change in this respect. For (to use the words of Augustine) “if Christian discipline condemned all wars, when the soldiers asked counsel as to the way of salvation, they would have been told to cast away their arms, and withdraw altogether from military service. Whereas it was said, (Luke 3: 14,) Concuss no one, do injury to no one, be contented with your pay. Those who he orders to be contented with their pay he certainly does not forbid to serve,” (August. Ep. 5 ad Marcell.)

But all magistrates must here be particularly cautious not to give way, in the slightest degree, to their passions. Or rather, whether punishments are to be inflicted, they must not be borne headlong by anger, nor hurried away by hatred, nor burn with implacable severity; they must, as Augustine says, (De Civil. Dei, Lib. 5 cap. 24,) “even pity a common nature in him in whom they punish an individual fault;” or whether they have to take up arms against an enemy, that is, an armed robber, they must not readily catch at the opportunity, nay, they must not take it when offered, unless compelled by the strongest necessity. For if we are to do far more than that heathen demanded who wished war to appear as desired peace, assuredly all other means must be tried before having recourse to arms. In fine, in both cases, they must not allow themselves to be carried away by any private feeling, but be guided solely by regard for the public. Acting otherwise, they wickedly abuse their power which was given them, not for their own advantage, but for the good and service of others.

On this right of war depends the right of garrisons, leagues, and other civil munitions. By garrisons, I mean those which are stationed in states for defence of the frontiers; by leagues, the alliances which are made by neighbouring princess on the ground that if any disturbance arise within their territories, they will mutually assist each other, and combine their forces to repel the common enemies of the human race; under civil munitions I include every thing pertaining to the military art.

For Aquinas and more on Calvin, see the following excellent paper in the scholarly publication First Things, entitled “Good Wars.”  For link see here.  Believe me … it is well worth the time to study this paper.

Finally, for further study on this issue, see a book that I gave to my son as a gift:

Loraine Boettner, “The Christian Attitude Toward War.”

I will make a post in the future contrasting the Christian attitude towards war with the Islamic attitude towards war.

A good story about making Marines was recently carried in the Parade magazine, and can be found here.  I also cite two books in an earlier post on making Marines: “Making the Corps,” and “Into the Crucible.”  One interesting thing about this story is found in the comments to the story.  One or more comments pertain to how this story has accidentally poor timing given the Haditha incident.

Let me say it as loudly as I can: No, and a thousand times NO!  Look, as the investigation(s) come to a close and whatever legal action is necessary ensues, we will find out the details of what happened.  We do not know now, and so I will not speculate.  In Boot Camp and SOI (School of Infantry) the Marines train killers – killers of the enemy.  They do it with no apologies.  They DO NOT train killers of women and children.  If the worst happens (Marines are found guity of crimes), then those who are found guilty will be punished.  It is not helpful, effective to appease our enemies, effective to appease the anti-war zealots, or honorable for us (brass, military, bloggers and finally the citizens) to engage in self-flagellation or in any way dishonor the Corps over something that a statistically insignificant number of men did (or are alleged to do).  The Marines who were not involved in this should keep their head held high.  This includes almost every member of the USMC.  We should all remember that the honor, dignity and prestige of our Marines, Soldiers, Airmen and Sailors are at stake, and act with decorum in the coming days.  The coming days might be trying and difficult.

In the future I will post more on this incident, including a quote from Ernie Pyle on what war does to soldiers (from his famous “This is Your War”).