The more I learn of history over decades, the more it appears that the interplay of nations resemble nothing so much as young children on a playground. There’s always the tough kid – of whom you knew not to run afoul – the bullies who would always try you on for size if given what they thought was an opening, as well as the perennial cast of onlookers and troublemakers. But what made that tough one appear so tough? Usually it was a previously administered sound beating given to a bully and from time to time this lesson had to be repeated.
In a different age, Teddy Roosevelt once told us to walk softly, but carry a big stick. Since WWII in fact, the United States has been trading in our sticks for smaller and smaller models, until today it appears we have selected a flower instead of a cudgel. Now, it is not the specific weaponry itself that is being referred to here but rather the will to use whatever is required to win.
While some may attempt to cloud this discussion by referring to Roosevelt’s antiquated jingoistic policies, that subterfuge is quite beside the point in that it is both the actuality of power and the appearance of power that provides deterrence, hence the big stick analogy. Because of a myriad of reasons, political correctness and its accompanying moral relativity near the top of the list, we have chosen the path of showing weakness and appearing irresolute. Any grade-schooler can tell you what that attitude brings from the omnipresent bullies on the playground.
Why describe the terrorists et al. as bullies? Perhaps a first person account showing something of the mindset of their allies will illustrate why this is an appropriate paradigm. Read the revelations of one Hafiz Sadiqulla Hassani, a recently fled Taliban bodyguard.
“Basically any form of pleasure was outlawed,” Mr. Hassani said, “and if we found people doing any of these things [described earlier by Hassani as watching video tapes or playing cards] we would beat them with staves soaked in water – like a knife cutting through meat – until the room ran with their blood or their spines snapped. Then we would leave them with no food or water in rooms filled with insects until they died.”
“Maybe the worst thing I saw,” he said, “was a man beaten so much, such a pulp of skin and blood, that it was impossible to tell whether he had clothes on or not. Every time he fell unconscious, we rubbed salt into his wounds to make him scream.” This account speaks volumes on the attitudes of this current set of bullies.
While recognizing our enemies for what they are, it is also needful to see that there are many innocents involved in this war, more because they have the misfortune of having the same religion so willfully perverted by these terrorists. Other innocents have seemed guilty to the unsophisticated because they are misidentified for their traditional customs of dress. Towards these blameless people kindness and generosity must be our constant watchwords or else we will blindly create more unwilling recruits for the terrorists. Yet in war this seems impossible unless we embrace a clear dichotomy of behavior, gentle compassion for the innocent and our friends, but something far different for our foes and their supporters. For relentless, remorseless enemies they proclaim themselves to be, both in word and deed.
It needs to be accepted that while there are indeed profound differences in the cultural norms of behavior between average Americans and the societies the terrorists sprang from, this does not present such a valid point of dissention so as to cause us to back off from the need to respond with deliberate authority. These cultural differences instead reinforce the notion that the response should be of a kind and at a level of ruthlessness that will be seen as painfully severe within the framework of their own social norms, not ours. It is that hurdle that our countrymen must face and assimilate in full. To do otherwise is to communicate further vulnerability and invite sustained attack when we bear in mind that, for our enemies, it is still the 12th century.
This somewhat shocking revelation on the need for harshness should not become our pandemic response, however – lest we ourselves become the bullies in reality as opposed to how we have been portrayed. This distinct dichotomy in our responses will not only reinforce the appearance of strength and resolve, but also defuse the ability of our detractors to successfully use America as their “Great Satan.”
There is little doubt that we can locate and eliminate this first string of terrorists eventually, but what of their young followers in training already thoroughly infused with blind hatred? Will not these up and coming fanatics have the need to replace their losses? In embracing such a marked disparity in our actions we additionally cut deeply into the pool of potential recruits needed to sustain these new terrorists’ campaigns in the years to come. Yes, years, a decade or more. This is very likely to be a very long struggle brought on by our own vacillating policies that have communicated declining strength.
Utterly ruthless harshness for the few, offset by gentle compassion for the many is the foundation of victory.
Tom Marzullo was a Special Forces soldier during Vietnam serving both on an A-Team and in MACVSOG. He completed his career in the U.S. Navy aboard submarines and was assigned to submarine special operations. He resides in Denver, Colo., with his bride of 21 years and their daughter.
What is a woman? The answer in Genesis 2 worked for lots of years
Nin Privitera