How to fight a civilized war against an uncivilized enemy

[Solomon2]

OPINION
By ERIC R. MANDEL \
12/28/2014

How to fight a civilized war against an uncivilized enemy
This is not a war of financial resources; it is a battle of power and determination.

An Islamic Jihad militant attends an anti-Israel rally in Rafah.. (photo credit:REUTERS)

How do you fight a war against an enemy who loves death more than they love life? How do you fight a war against a people who, in the name of religion, deliberately kill, enslave and torture innocent children, women and men? How do you maintain a moral compass while confronting an enemy with no respect for the rules of war? To begin to answer these questions, we must start with an honest examination of our security interests.

In this “war,” military operations will likely be choices of last resort, but our chance for success will be drastically limited unless we confront this enemy as if we were in a full-scale military confrontation. Our current ad-hoc military operations, i.e. drone strikes, will be ineffective over the long term unless they are part of a comprehensive strategy with a clear vision for success.

Seventy-nine years ago, we faced an enemy that was pure evil, and it was known as Nazism. But then, unlike now, we knew that absolute evil had to be extinguished by one means or another.

In the case of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, the answer was their unconditional surrender.

In the case of Communism during the Cold War (remember Ronald Reagan’s “evil empire”?), there was no quick exit. There were many military battles and diplomatic skirmishes fought over decades, with no end in sight, until the very end. Yet the non-wavering vision in each case was to bring home as complete a victory as possible, knowing that America and the West were in the right, and the enemy was beyond the civilized pale.

Today’s “evil empire” is radical jihadist Islamism, the 21st century version of Nazism. The jihadists of all sectarian stripes, i.e. Sunni and Shi’ite, expect victory, because their (accurate) assessment of the West is that it does not have the willpower to fight an enemy without a clear exit strategy, or one that may not be vanquished in their lifetime. So we need to ask ourselves: • Are we willing to map out an effective and flexible strategy to destroy, or at least profoundly weaken, radical Islamism, knowing many obstacles and setbacks lie ahead? • Is there a visionary Western leader on the horizon in the 21st century who can look beyond our need for instant gratification and explain that we must confront the menace of jihadism because over time it could destroy and threaten all that we hold dear? • Does the West in the era of 24/7 instantaneous news coverage have the “stomach” to fight a war where all of its actions will be under a magnifying glass, and withstand the inevitable accusations of war crimes for killing civilians purposely embedded within terrorist operating bases? • Can the West fight an enemy that measures success in centuries, has infinite patience, and has tens of millions of adherents and supporters? • Is it too late for America and the West to act? The answer to that last question is no, but it seems that only the Israelis understand the existential dangers posed by radical Islamism. Perhaps that is because it is their survival that is most obviously threatened by it.

There is no appeasement or placation that can satisfy radical Islamism. Until America realizes that our way of life is endangered by the growing radical threat of jihadists, we will be fighting with two hands behind our back.

How does one define radical Islamists? Today’s flavor of the day is the Sunni Islamic State. However, whether Sunni or Shi’ite, Arab or Persian, radical Islamists should be viewed by the West as sides of the same jihadist coin. We must not be confused by the fact that sometimes they are at each other’s throats as mortal enemies, and sometimes cross sectarian lines to work together against the greater evils, i.e. America, Israel and the West.

The next American president must abandon the idea that there are good and bad radical Islamists. The Sunni Islamic State must be defeated, but the danger of radical Iranian Shi’ite Islamism is more likely to be a greater threat to America and Western interests over the long term.

The Obama administration mistakenly believes that Shi’ite Islamist Iran needs to be embraced as part of the solution against radical Islamism. Nothing could be further from the truth. It also mistakenly embraced the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood as the face of moderate Islamism. American allies like Jordanian King Abdullah knew better, and chastised America by stating that the Muslim Brotherhood is simply a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Muslim nation-states must, for their own self interest, become the leaders in this war against radical Islamism.

This is anti-Islamist, not anti-Islam. This can only happen if the strategy has the buy-in of the Sunni nation-states, i.e. Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the Gulf States, and includes the Kurds, the Turks and Shi’ites who do not support the Iranian regime. Getting into bed with allies like the Wahabi Sunnis of the Arabian Peninsula is certainly distasteful, but it is necessary for success at this point.

The complexity of this overwhelming grand vision should be self-evident. Different theaters of action against differing radical Islamist groups will require different strategic partners and ever-changing strategies. The tools will include support of allied nation-states, recruitment of dissidents, diplomatic pressure, economic incentives and disincentives, clandestine actions, counterterrorism, effective use of social media, and, yes, military operations, among many other possibilities.

The potential length of this conflict makes this war much more analogous to the Cold War than WWII, but even that analogy is a stretch, as this conflict will be profoundly different. This is not a war of financial resources; it is a battle of power and determination.

As was the case for WWII and the Cold War, the war against radical Islamism is a fight against ideologies that want to destroy our freedoms and our way of life.

The author is the director of MEPIN (Middle East Political and Information Network), a Middle East research analysis read by members of Congress, their foreign policy advisers, members of the Knesset, journalists and organizational leaders.

 

[kyle Chiang]

No war is civilized.

 

[livingdead]

palestinians are not uncivilized. They are fighting assymetrical war. You will do same if you dont have access to resource.

 

[gambit]

No war is civilized.

Does that mean all tactics and tools are permissible ?

palestinians are not uncivilized. They are fighting assymetrical war. You will do same if you dont have access to resource.

So what if the forces are asymmetrical in all the acceptable criteria of war ? Yours and the Chinese member's comments have just slightly opened the door to unrestricted warfare, regardless of scope of the current situation.

 

[kbd-raaf]

In the case of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, the answer was their unconditional surrender.

Bullshit. Both these Western enemies fought their enemies with something akin to honour.

In fact, I would wager that they treated their PoWs, etc, just as well as the Allies did.

 

[livingdead]

Does that mean all tactics and tools are permissible ?


So what if the forces are asymmetrical in all the acceptable criteria of war ? Yours and the Chinese member's comments have just slightly opened the door to unrestricted warfare, regardless of scope of the current situation.

what is permissible depends on combatants. I was just pointing that you cannot dehumanize palestinians. Thats something I felt personally when I met israelis in my life. They talk of palestinians as some barbaric horde.

 

[ranjeet]

I just read the first line of the article ... if your enemy fantasize about death more than life, give him so much death that life seems like a gift of God to them. there is a limit to tolerate such kind of though process.

 

[kyle Chiang]

Does that mean all tactics and tools are permissible ?

Civilized people or countries will only take the military force as the last one choice to guard themselves,but not come to kill others for their named "justice" with named "civilized tools or tactics".

What I said means war is evil in itself.

Using chemical weapons or common bullets don't equal to uncivilized or civilized,but too evil or evil,especially when you fight against poor countries.

 

[Butchcassidy]

There should be only one goal while fighting a war, and that is to win.

 

[zip]

Civilized people or countries will only take the military force as the last one choice to guard themselves,but not come to kill others for their named "justice" with named "civilized tools or tactics".

What I said means war is evil in itself.

Using chemical weapons or common bullets don't equal to uncivilized or civilized,but too evil or evil,especially when you fight against poor countries.

Live in a forest full of wild animals and try to teach them civilization ..

 

[MastanKhan]

OPINION
By ERIC R. MANDEL \
12/28/2014

How to fight a civilized war against an uncivilized enemy
This is not a war of financial resources; it is a battle of power and determination.

An Islamic Jihad militant attends an anti-Israel rally in Rafah.. (photo credit:REUTERS)

How do you fight a war against an enemy who loves death more than they love life? How do you fight a war against a people who, in the name of religion, deliberately kill, enslave and torture innocent children, women and men? How do you maintain a moral compass while confronting an enemy with no respect for the rules of war? To begin to answer these questions, we must start with an honest examination of our security interests.

In this “war,” military operations will likely be choices of last resort, but our chance for success will be drastically limited unless we confront this enemy as if we were in a full-scale military confrontation. Our current ad-hoc military operations, i.e. drone strikes, will be ineffective over the long term unless they are part of a comprehensive strategy with a clear vision for success.

Seventy-nine years ago, we faced an enemy that was pure evil, and it was known as Nazism. But then, unlike now, we knew that absolute evil had to be extinguished by one means or another.

In the case of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, the answer was their unconditional surrender.

In the case of Communism during the Cold War (remember Ronald Reagan’s “evil empire”?), there was no quick exit. There were many military battles and diplomatic skirmishes fought over decades, with no end in sight, until the very end. Yet the non-wavering vision in each case was to bring home as complete a victory as possible, knowing that America and the West were in the right, and the enemy was beyond the civilized pale.

Today’s “evil empire” is radical jihadist Islamism, the 21st century version of Nazism. The jihadists of all sectarian stripes, i.e. Sunni and Shi’ite, expect victory, because their (accurate) assessment of the West is that it does not have the willpower to fight an enemy without a clear exit strategy, or one that may not be vanquished in their lifetime. So we need to ask ourselves: • Are we willing to map out an effective and flexible strategy to destroy, or at least profoundly weaken, radical Islamism, knowing many obstacles and setbacks lie ahead? • Is there a visionary Western leader on the horizon in the 21st century who can look beyond our need for instant gratification and explain that we must confront the menace of jihadism because over time it could destroy and threaten all that we hold dear? • Does the West in the era of 24/7 instantaneous news coverage have the “stomach” to fight a war where all of its actions will be under a magnifying glass, and withstand the inevitable accusations of war crimes for killing civilians purposely embedded within terrorist operating bases? • Can the West fight an enemy that measures success in centuries, has infinite patience, and has tens of millions of adherents and supporters? • Is it too late for America and the West to act? The answer to that last question is no, but it seems that only the Israelis understand the existential dangers posed by radical Islamism. Perhaps that is because it is their survival that is most obviously threatened by it.

There is no appeasement or placation that can satisfy radical Islamism. Until America realizes that our way of life is endangered by the growing radical threat of jihadists, we will be fighting with two hands behind our back.

How does one define radical Islamists? Today’s flavor of the day is the Sunni Islamic State. However, whether Sunni or Shi’ite, Arab or Persian, radical Islamists should be viewed by the West as sides of the same jihadist coin. We must not be confused by the fact that sometimes they are at each other’s throats as mortal enemies, and sometimes cross sectarian lines to work together against the greater evils, i.e. America, Israel and the West.

The next American president must abandon the idea that there are good and bad radical Islamists. The Sunni Islamic State must be defeated, but the danger of radical Iranian Shi’ite Islamism is more likely to be a greater threat to America and Western interests over the long term.

The Obama administration mistakenly believes that Shi’ite Islamist Iran needs to be embraced as part of the solution against radical Islamism. Nothing could be further from the truth. It also mistakenly embraced the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood as the face of moderate Islamism. American allies like Jordanian King Abdullah knew better, and chastised America by stating that the Muslim Brotherhood is simply a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Muslim nation-states must, for their own self interest, become the leaders in this war against radical Islamism.

This is anti-Islamist, not anti-Islam. This can only happen if the strategy has the buy-in of the Sunni nation-states, i.e. Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the Gulf States, and includes the Kurds, the Turks and Shi’ites who do not support the Iranian regime. Getting into bed with allies like the Wahabi Sunnis of the Arabian Peninsula is certainly distasteful, but it is necessary for success at this point.

The complexity of this overwhelming grand vision should be self-evident. Different theaters of action against differing radical Islamist groups will require different strategic partners and ever-changing strategies. The tools will include support of allied nation-states, recruitment of dissidents, diplomatic pressure, economic incentives and disincentives, clandestine actions, counterterrorism, effective use of social media, and, yes, military operations, among many other possibilities.

The potential length of this conflict makes this war much more analogous to the Cold War than WWII, but even that analogy is a stretch, as this conflict will be profoundly different. This is not a war of financial resources; it is a battle of power and determination.

As was the case for WWII and the Cold War, the war against radical Islamism is a fight against ideologies that want to destroy our freedoms and our way of life.

The author is the director of MEPIN (Middle East Political and Information Network), a Middle East research analysis read by members of Congress, their foreign policy advisers, members of the Knesset, journalists and organizational leaders.

Sir,

This is a disgusting and pathetic article---. These people---the islamic jihad did not put you into the prison camps----they did not slaughter you your children your mothers fathers uncles and generations---they did not put you into the gas chambers--and neither did they put you into the furnaces---and nor did they starve you to death or rape your women or pillage you lands---.

Their only tragedy is that you stole their lands by force---their only tragedy is that you again gets weapons of death and destruction from those who slaughtered you by the millions to use on those whose properties you have stolen.

You created " the supposed radical islam " ---- just like the germans created radical jews. You sit on the land stolen from them----you keep on stealing more land and if these people fight back---it becomes " radical islam "----what radical islam----there is no such thing as radical islam----what a drama.

 

[HariPrasad]

OPINION
By ERIC R. MANDEL \
12/28/2014

How to fight a civilized war against an uncivilized enemy
This is not a war of financial resources; it is a battle of power and determination.

An Islamic Jihad militant attends an anti-Israel rally in Rafah.. (photo credit:REUTERS)

How do you fight a war against an enemy who loves death more than they love life? How do you fight a war against a people who, in the name of religion, deliberately kill, enslave and torture innocent children, women and men? How do you maintain a moral compass while confronting an enemy with no respect for the rules of war? To begin to answer these questions, we must start with an honest examination of our security interests.

In this “war,” military operations will likely be choices of last resort, but our chance for success will be drastically limited unless we confront this enemy as if we were in a full-scale military confrontation. Our current ad-hoc military operations, i.e. drone strikes, will be ineffective over the long term unless they are part of a comprehensive strategy with a clear vision for success.

Seventy-nine years ago, we faced an enemy that was pure evil, and it was known as Nazism. But then, unlike now, we knew that absolute evil had to be extinguished by one means or another.

In the case of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, the answer was their unconditional surrender.

In the case of Communism during the Cold War (remember Ronald Reagan’s “evil empire”?), there was no quick exit. There were many military battles and diplomatic skirmishes fought over decades, with no end in sight, until the very end. Yet the non-wavering vision in each case was to bring home as complete a victory as possible, knowing that America and the West were in the right, and the enemy was beyond the civilized pale.

Today’s “evil empire” is radical jihadist Islamism, the 21st century version of Nazism. The jihadists of all sectarian stripes, i.e. Sunni and Shi’ite, expect victory, because their (accurate) assessment of the West is that it does not have the willpower to fight an enemy without a clear exit strategy, or one that may not be vanquished in their lifetime. So we need to ask ourselves: • Are we willing to map out an effective and flexible strategy to destroy, or at least profoundly weaken, radical Islamism, knowing many obstacles and setbacks lie ahead? • Is there a visionary Western leader on the horizon in the 21st century who can look beyond our need for instant gratification and explain that we must confront the menace of jihadism because over time it could destroy and threaten all that we hold dear? • Does the West in the era of 24/7 instantaneous news coverage have the “stomach” to fight a war where all of its actions will be under a magnifying glass, and withstand the inevitable accusations of war crimes for killing civilians purposely embedded within terrorist operating bases? • Can the West fight an enemy that measures success in centuries, has infinite patience, and has tens of millions of adherents and supporters? • Is it too late for America and the West to act? The answer to that last question is no, but it seems that only the Israelis understand the existential dangers posed by radical Islamism. Perhaps that is because it is their survival that is most obviously threatened by it.

There is no appeasement or placation that can satisfy radical Islamism. Until America realizes that our way of life is endangered by the growing radical threat of jihadists, we will be fighting with two hands behind our back.

How does one define radical Islamists? Today’s flavor of the day is the Sunni Islamic State. However, whether Sunni or Shi’ite, Arab or Persian, radical Islamists should be viewed by the West as sides of the same jihadist coin. We must not be confused by the fact that sometimes they are at each other’s throats as mortal enemies, and sometimes cross sectarian lines to work together against the greater evils, i.e. America, Israel and the West.

The next American president must abandon the idea that there are good and bad radical Islamists. The Sunni Islamic State must be defeated, but the danger of radical Iranian Shi’ite Islamism is more likely to be a greater threat to America and Western interests over the long term.

The Obama administration mistakenly believes that Shi’ite Islamist Iran needs to be embraced as part of the solution against radical Islamism. Nothing could be further from the truth. It also mistakenly embraced the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood as the face of moderate Islamism. American allies like Jordanian King Abdullah knew better, and chastised America by stating that the Muslim Brotherhood is simply a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Muslim nation-states must, for their own self interest, become the leaders in this war against radical Islamism.

This is anti-Islamist, not anti-Islam. This can only happen if the strategy has the buy-in of the Sunni nation-states, i.e. Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the Gulf States, and includes the Kurds, the Turks and Shi’ites who do not support the Iranian regime. Getting into bed with allies like the Wahabi Sunnis of the Arabian Peninsula is certainly distasteful, but it is necessary for success at this point.

The complexity of this overwhelming grand vision should be self-evident. Different theaters of action against differing radical Islamist groups will require different strategic partners and ever-changing strategies. The tools will include support of allied nation-states, recruitment of dissidents, diplomatic pressure, economic incentives and disincentives, clandestine actions, counterterrorism, effective use of social media, and, yes, military operations, among many other possibilities.

The potential length of this conflict makes this war much more analogous to the Cold War than WWII, but even that analogy is a stretch, as this conflict will be profoundly different. This is not a war of financial resources; it is a battle of power and determination.

As was the case for WWII and the Cold War, the war against radical Islamism is a fight against ideologies that want to destroy our freedoms and our way of life.

The author is the director of MEPIN (Middle East Political and Information Network), a Middle East research analysis read by members of Congress, their foreign policy advisers, members of the Knesset, journalists and organizational leaders.

By making them civilized.

This war shall not be won by mare power. You will have to device a mix of Psychological warfare, Diplomacy, welfare measure and power to address the issue. The problem with Israel is that it excessively depends on use of power.

I suggest one measure. Make a group of some Israelis and Palestinee people. Both group should meet at border and pray for well being of both countries. Few people from Israel shall go to Pelestine and serve the poor and injured and vice a versa. Measure to build friendship should be boosted.

 

[Solomon2]

This is a disgusting and pathetic article---. These people---the islamic jihad...they did not slaughter you your children your mothers fathers uncles and generations---

You've been reading from the "Palestinian" playbook wayyyy too long. You're not new here, either, so you've read my pocket histories before - and you've doubtless noticed that only rarely can anyone substantiate a contradiction to them.

Pakistanis in Pakistan are forbidden by diktat to contradict the official line but you sir are in America and have more freedom of dissent. Why don't you use it to move your country forward?

You created " the supposed radical islam "

This goes back to a popular theme of mine: that it's Pakistani rejection of Israel that creates radical Islam. The diseased thinking I've described is sustained by the powers-that-be because without it Israel would be judged good and better than her Muslim enemies - an unacceptable conclusion - and besides popular antisemitism keeps the populace from examining who is raiding the public till.

 

[Developereo]

Their only tragedy is that you stole their lands by force---

The irony of these racist colonialists portraying themselves as the 'victims' and the evicted Palestinians as 'animals' is beyond comment.

Imagine the white Afrikaner colonialists complaining about the inhuman black hordes attacking them...

antisemitism

"Zionism Has Nothing to do With Judaism" » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

formerly an anti-Semite was somebody who hated Jews because they were Jews and due to their Jewish nature and their race… Nowadays an anti-Semite is somebody who is hated by a certain type of Zionist

 

[MastanKhan]

Bullshit. Both these Western enemies fought their enemies with something akin to honour.

In fact, I would wager that they treated their PoWs, etc, just as well as the Allies did.

Hi,

The American and the allies did treat the germans fairly----but the germans were rough with the ally prisoners----otoh----the atrocities committed by the Japanese against the allies and Europeans were beyond being ruthless---beyond comprehension---one type of atrocity was anything beyond human that was committed by the Japanese against the European families they had captured----here is the detail---if you are weak of heart and don't want to read it---you can stop here----

Anyway----on the beam of the roof a rope would be hung with a noose at the end----a father would be asked to stand under it---his child was placed on his shoulders----the noose put around the childs neck and tightened without slack---the game was that how long the father would be able to keep standing to save his child---and that was done right in front of the families----there was no happy ending.

What is the reason that the americans and the british have not openly come out with the atrocities that the Japanese committed against them in their prison camps----I donot know---.

Does that answer a part of your statement.