Double down?
Via InstaHeh, A post on the necessity of increasing our presence in Iraq, overwhelming our enemies there, makes some good points. The problem I have with its thesis, i.e. that vastly increasing the number of boots in Iraq will cause the jihadists to stop their violence, ignores something very important. Just because you’ve induced peace through superior strength doesn’t mean that you’ve guaranteed it in the long run.
Jihadists are known for their ability to make treaties, promising peace, then resuming violence once they’re again in a position of strength. As the saying goes, jihadists regard cease-fires as a chance to re-arm. Of course, this raises the question, if we’re stuck between the choice of false peace and continual war, how can we win?
The answer to that question depends entirely on what you want as an end result. The author of the cited article wants a sustainable stability in Iraq, ostensibly sustainable by the Iraqi government. This is understandable. It’s also short-sighted and indicative of the Cold War/Western mentality behind it. Those jihadis in Iraq aren’t fighting a war for their independence. Independence, freedom, autonomy, etc. are something that rational people desire. Jihadis are not rational.
The Palestinians do not want a state. The Hizbollahi do not want a voice. The Iraqi “insurgents” do not want independence or freedom. They all want a Caliphate. They all are willing to do whatever it takes to get that Caliphate. To think that we can convence them otherwise, through reason or raw strength, is a mistake. Boots on the ground will only give them pause.
While I agree that more boots on the ground is a far better solution than to “cut our losses” (for that would only increase them ten-fold in ten years or less), we have to cut this cancer of Islamism out of our world, or face the consequences of ignoring it for the sake of temporary peace. Anything less reeks of the willful ignorance of Chamberlain.
Leave a Reply