CANADA IS AT WAR TODAY
(under development)
TABLE of CONTENTS
WHO ARE THE ISLAMIC TERRORISTS AT WAR WITH?
BLINDNESS OF SECURITY BUREAUCRATS
WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO WIN THE WAR?
When someone credibly declares war on you, you are in the war - you don't get a choice.
They decided by initiating war. You only have a choice of whether or not to defend yourself. If you choose not to defend yourself it will be a short war - and you know who will lose it.
Attacks may come by any means the enemy can devise and accomplish - when, where and how they decide. Your bureaucratic prediction of probable methods only serves to motivate them to try something different that has greater chance of success. Hence the Arab states who attacked Israel gave up on direct war, which they lost every time, and turned to terrorism.
Note that dishonest people will at first try harder when their initial efforts are countered. Only a defendant with resolve will succeed - by continuing to counter them. Ceasing to defend because the first battle was tough, or trying to appease, simply does not work with dishonest people - their mindset is fundamentally different (that's what makes them dishonest). Those who initiate war are dishonest because they want to gain something by force instead of cooperation such as trading values - thus they will behave similarly.
To defend you must be vigilant to detect attack, determine probable sources and strengths of attacks, and take pre-emptive action against sources that certainly will attack you.
Too many Canadians see the Islamic terrorism as a war on the US not Canada. But Canada:
- was specifically named by Oslama bin Laden.
- is inextricably tied economically, militarily, and socially to the US.
- shares a way of life with the US and like countries including the UK (individual freedom protected by a justice system).
Thus Canada will be viewed as an ally, as a land of infidels.
Since the Islamicists are making war on a way of life they are ultimately at war with anyone who values that way of life. (They attack the US because it is the best example of the success of that way of life and the strongest defender of it. In a war one does not usually attack all targets at once, for many reasons including symbolic, strategic, and exploiting weakness.)
The Islamic terrorist warrior attacks of September 11, 2001 were on the social system that Canadians enjoy and prosper from - a system based on individual freedom protected by a justice system. (There is ample evidence that the Arab Islamic terrorist leaders hate freedom and the prosperity it fosters. A few quotes are at my Quotes about the New Left/ Modern Liberals and some clues to their nature are at my
Prior Knowledge of Terrorism, with comprehensive comment at Michael Hurd's The Ideology That Animates Them ("At root, the war is about love of life versus hatred of life."). Since the nature of their campaign is explicitly nihilistic this is even more a fight for life on earth than defense against Hitler was, and avoidance of defense even more quickly a path to our own death (Hitler at least wanted many slaves, though he happily killed many such as Jews regardless of their productive capability).
That social system includes economics - it was not happenstance that the World Trade Center was a prime target on September 11, 2001. Canadians actively participate in US financial activities - many were killed in the collapse of the WTC towers on September 11, 2001 - and are suppliers to the military forces of the US and Allies.
Canada and the US are partners in NORAD, the North American Air Defense system, because the two neighbours agreed to help each other defend North America. (Mexico is not included, perhaps because the largest threat in the past was considered to be from the northerly quadrants (and Mexico is usually too poor to help much, because of its less free political system - though I expect there are liaison communication channels and the NORTHCOMM sensor function includes a commmand station in Florida). Recently NORAD is expanding to cover threats arriving by water.) NORAD is a joint effort such that specific Canadian and US military personnel have authority in each others' country depending on their specific assignment at the moment a decision must be made.
Canada was used as a base for attacking the US (notably the Ressam effort to kill people at Los Angeles airport).
Two statements by Islamic terrorists exemplify their approach to life:
"The Americans love Pepsi-Cola, we love death,"
- al Qaeda's Mualana Inyadullah
Jews "love life more than any other people, and they prefer not to die,"
- official Ismail Haniya, of the Islamic terrorist group Hamas
On the face of it, the Islamic terrorist warriors of September 11, 2001 were Arabs organized by the al Qaeda group, which was born in an area near Saudi Arabia but ended up operating out of defensible rugged terrain with cooperation of a strict Muslim government in Afghanistan.
So are they just another cult, albeit an outwardly aggressive one?
No.
Their ideology comes out of religious teachings in Saudi Arabia and Iran, which are also the source of financing for many terrorist operations in the Middle East. Like most religious extremists, they believe their way is the only way and it is moral to force you to follow it. But even more than most, they are happy to kill you to achieve their goal - and for their suicidal warriors immediate salvation awaits in an Islamic heaven.
Some are clearly fascist - the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, for example, provided financial support to terrorists operating against Israel. (Thus were not only fascists in the plain political sense, but anti-Jew as the Nazis in Germany were.)
Why Jews? Beyond the religious antagonism of Muslims in the Middle East, there is envy. Jews are often financially successful, thus those who envy - such as socialists and "Modern Liberals" in democratic countries - hate them. Indeed, Israel is successful - a society prospering by its own efforts, relatively free compared to most of the Middle East.
Worse, the war-mongering Islamicists are against civilization. They want an existence of rote obedience, even for the chosen sex (male - females are disposible in much of Islam), which necessitates primitive ways. And they value a non-life - their heaven - instead of life on earth.
They are against everything that people in democratic countries take for granted - equality, individual liberty, choice of association, and the support for human life that prosperity provides.
Please go to my list of prior knowledge of the probable targets and methods of Arab Islamic terrorists for information that shows security bureaucrats weren't competent enough to put basic information together or politicians weren't responsible enough to listen to the warnings and actually do something meaningful. (A Canadian NORAD official was in the "who could have thought ...." camp after September 11, 2001. See my list for reasons why they should have thought of it.)
(That page also contains references to declarations of war by Arab Islamic terrorists.)
I am very concerned that:
- comparable errors will be made by the current bureaucrats.
- the focus on security within North America will not be effective enough but will reduce what is essential to freedom: individual liberty.
What does it take to win the war?
Not elimination of the very thing that makes us strong - individual liberty. Please go to my discussion of individual liberties in the context of combatting Arab Islamic terrorist warriors for thoughts and information on that.
To win a war one must be:
1- vigilant to detect specific attacks.
2- maintaining strong defenses appropriate to all probable methods of attack (no Maginot Lines).
3- able to determine probable sources and strengths of attacks.
4- willing to defend oneself, including by taking pre-emptive action against sources that certainly will attack.
My list of prior knowledge of probable targets and methods provides information on some of item 3.
One of the odd beliefs people have is that avoiding confrontation will prevent attack. Does that come from a feeling of guilt? Or a presumption that someone will protect them? (Who? A god? A teacher catching the school bully?) Or a belief that "it takes two to have a fight"? (But it only takes one to assault a victim. The "it takes two" maxim is for minor disagreements, such as having bumped into a grouchy person, not for someone intending to kill you. Nor is this a case where a hostage can psych out the kidnapper.) Reality is that war-mongers won't hesitate, especially those who are willing to take extreme risks and are willing to certainly lose their own life in the war - the nature of today's Islamic terrorists. Reality is that weakness encourages bullies and terrorists, and that there is no teacher to intervene - the United Nations repeatedly proves itself completely ineffective.
Canada has tried to position itself as "peacekeeper", a role that might work when the opposing sides need only transitional policing as more of their members become accustomed to getting on with life instead of war. But it cannot solve the problem of those who are determined to make war and have the patience to bide their time until the peace-keepers leave - as Sadam Hussein intended and as some groups have done for centuries. Perhaps long-term occupation is needed, by occupiers who are dedicated to educating the populace for at least one generation so that young adults will not take up the sword their parents want them to. (Note that the US and Allies turned German and Japanese societies around in just a few years - pointed to a new way, individuals in Japan adopted it so prospered in peace.)
Pre-emptive defense is a moral action by a free country because it saves lives of people in the free country and preserves their freedom. (Individual freedom is moral because it is the one social system that fosters the life of beings of finite lifespan.) To wait until a probable major attack comes is suicidal - when your own citizens are dead and your defenses are impaired it is too late.
(Refer to "Peacenik Warmongers" in the Media section of http://www.aynrand.org for a discussion of the results of Pacifism, which is effectively suicide.)
However, technically action against Islamic terrorists and dictators like Saddam Hussein is retaliatory not pre-emptive, because they have already attacked free people or sponsored those who did. It is in the self-interest of Canadians to help preserve freedom, though we do not have an obligation per se to help each case outside our borders - only to defend ourselves.
What about the innocents?
Who are they?
- persons held hostage by the combatents, perhaps used as shields
- children whose parents are supposed to be taking care of them but instead put them in harm's way, often used as promotional shields by the combatents (trying to dissuade attack)
[Tell me whose hands their blood is on.]
Who are not innocents?
- anyone who is reasonably able to leave (thus has chosen to stay)
- most who remain are helping the combatents by providing services such as food, water, shelter, or psychological support (comfort)
- while the very elderly may not have physical ability to leave, they are in a position as elders to counsel the young
The residents of Japan, for example, were providing arms, transportation, and other assistance to the brutal military of Japan that was conquering much of SE Asia.
Fortunately they were stopped by the United States of America taking the war home to Japanese residents.
The proper role of our government is to protect us against the initiation of physical force. Thus the Canadian government should be defending us against the Islamic terrorists' war attacks. To do otherwise is negligence by a government, suicide by the people who elect the government.
Yet Canadian governments often bash the US instead of helping defend freedom, while depending on the military strength of the US for protection and on US customers for economic prosperity.
- Leonard Peikoff's September 30, 2003 talk to the faculty of West Point Academy, "What is a just war?"
- ARI Editorial "Peacenik Warmongers", in the Media section of http://www.aynrand.org
- ARI Op-Ed article America's Maginot Line, or here (in Capitalism Magazine)
- Op-Ed article War Is The Moral Response, Steven Brockerman
- Gifts from Heaven: The Meaning of the American victory over Japan, 1945 The Objective Standard, Fall07-Winter08 issue, by John David Lewis (author of Nothing Less Than Victory, forthcoming from Princeton University Press)
Canadian Heroes blogroll.
Support Our Troops through Red Fridays and Cell Phones for Soldiers. (Lapel pins also available at Canex stores near military bases.)
Canadian Ally is a Government of Canada web site that includes a world map showing which countries have Canadian military missions, by name of the operation.
Writing in 1948 about the years between the world wars, on the title page of The Gathering Storm, Winston Churchill introduced the story of "how the English-speaking peoples through their unwisdom, carelessness, and good nature allowed the wicked to rearm." I ask if you see that behaviour in your mirror.
Remember.....
"In war there is no second prize for the runner-up."
- General Omar Bradley, quoted by Colonel Phil Bassert in 'Air Mobilityh Innovation During Wartime: The USAFE AMOCC, 2004-2006', Airlift/Tanker Quarterly of Fall 2007
Copyright - Page version 2008.08.04 (1353PDT)
If any links no longer work please let me know - the Internet changes.