BARN
ARMY TRAINING COMMAND
|
 |
Last
year, Republican presidential contender Donald Trump appeared on Fox
News Channel’s “Fox & Friends,” where he discussed how he would
handle the threat of ISIS. He said that, against ISIS, he would even
take out the families of terrorists.
 WILL TRUMP GO 'KEYSER SOZE' ON TERRORISTS? Exclusive: Lt. Col. Damian Housman pushes for Donald's 'take out their families' approach By Lt. Col. Damian Housman Islamic terrorism is on the march, seemingly able to strike at will. Paris saw the murder of more than 100 innocent people in 2015. The killers were members of the Islamic State. This, at a time when Euro-stupidity watches hundreds of thousands of Middle Easterners flowing into Europe. No one knows how many of these new arrivals are would-be terrorists, but the vast majority are males of military age. You couldn’t ask for a more likely group to generate large numbers of terrorists. Europeans may be mostly docile, but many seem to have had enough. Whether there are enough to actually stop the migration or even turn it away is hard to see just yet. On the heels of the Islamist attack in Paris came the attack in San Bernardino, California. Need I point out that the murderers were Muslims? More recently, truck attacks in France and Germany. And the Russian ambassador to Turkey was assassinated by a (Turkish) member of the police team protecting him, who shouted “Allahu Akhbar!”
That
tactic is, in effect, the vendetta. Its premise is that retribution for
the acts committed by an individual shall not be limited to that
individual, but shall be visited on those closest to him as well. It
isn’t limited to the Mafia or the Hatfields and McCoys.
Every religion has its hotheads. But what do other Christians do when
they see a Christian hothead “acting out” today? By acting out I mean
acting in a threatening way, especially toward others such as Arabs or
Jews. In general, when one Christian acts out, others tend to stop him.What happens in any Islamic country when Abdullah gets feeling ultra-Muslim and burns an American flag on his lawn and screams about President Trump and the Jews? What would his neighbors do? His neighbors may join him, not try to stop him. What about clerics? Christian clerics will always counsel peace and brotherhood. Jewish rabbis are the same. Muslim clerics, we are discovering (and this seems to be a worldwide phenomenon), counsel violence against non-Muslims. Islam has been a warlike, conquering religion from the start. Calling it a “religion of peace” is a complete misreading of its history, even back to the days of Muhammad. It was Muhammad who compelled the surrender of the Jewish Bani Qurayza tribe. After a show trial, all the men of the tribe were beheaded. The women and children were taken as slaves and given to the men of Muhammad. Rather than being an unusual event, this was an example of what we would see ever since. Prior to 1978, the shah sat upon the Peacock Throne of Iran. Thanks to Jimmy Carter, the Ayatollah Khomeini was allowed to take power in Iran. A nation that was friendly toward America and the West, which had excellent relations with Israel, which even had Israeli instructor pilots helping its air force, became the linchpin of the axis of evil. It is now a principal financier and training ground for anti-Israeli, anti-American and anti-Western terrorist groups. Before the war against terrorism is over, we will have to deal with Iran. And now we will have to deal with a nuclear-armed Iran. In the meantime, Iran supplies the philosophical and financial backing for most of the Islamic terrorism in the world today. I credit the jihadist for possessing certain elements of courage. Though his tactics are cowardly, he does have the courage of his convictions and the courage to face the consequences of his actions. This surprises some Americans, but it shouldn’t. We faced the same thing during World War II. Japanese Kamikaze pilots intentionally rammed their aircraft and themselves into American warships for a period of several months near the end of the war. So why is there surprise at suicidal terrorists? Over the last three decades, American presidents have pursued a legalistic approach to those who commit terrorist acts against American interests. They want to “bring them to justice”: Find out which terrorist did it, arrest him anywhere he may be in the world, bring him to America, put him on trial, try to convict him, and imprison him. The problem is that if we arrest every terrorist who commits or even plans an act of terror against us, or even kill them, we will still not be rid of the problem. The terrorists understand the penalty for getting caught and figure on martyrdom and 72 virgins. Knocking them off piecemeal won’t end it. Terrorists have to come to terms with only their own martyrdom or imprisonment, which they accept, because they know they are dealing with a civilized opponent. In the 1940s, Gandhi engaged in a campaign of civil disobedience against British authorities for the independence of India. He knew he could get away with it because he was facing a civilized opponent. What would have happened to him if he had done the same thing against the Soviet Union or the Red Chinese? Would we ever have heard of Gandhi? When an ISIS terrorist is captured he sits in jail, expecting prison or death. He has already made his peace with Allah. Ah, but what if he now hears that someone has kidnapped his sister? And what if, a few days later, her mutilated body turns up at the local dump or on his doorstep? Now that terrorist may rethink his chosen career, since his family has suffered for it. Another ISIS terrorist is captured. And his brother suddenly disappears from home or the street; a week later his body turns up. Now the terrorist wonders if it was wise to risk his family for his choice of life as a terrorist. In Israel, the homes of captured or killed terrorists are destroyed, and the families must move elsewhere. Recently, the father of a terrorist turned in his son, because he didn’t want to lose his home. Action against the families of terrorists works. Last year, Republican presidential contender Donald Trump appeared on Fox News Channel’s “Fox & Friends,” where he discussed how he would handle the threat of ISIS. He said that, against ISIS, he would even take out the families of terrorists. “[I]t’s a horrible thing. They’re using them as shields. But we’re fighting a very politically correct war,” he said. “And the other thing is, with the terrorists, you have to take out their families. When you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives; don’t kid yourself. But they say they don’t care about their lives. You have to take out their families.” This observation by Trump is highly insightful and inciteful. It’s the only thing that works against terrorists. Their families support them, and are often compensated when their terrorist kid dies. Islamic clerics support them in terrorism, unlike Christian or Jewish clerics. When you catch or kill a terrorist, you must make their family pay as well. Do it just a few times, and families will be less willing to let their kids die for Allah. Finally, one American gets it (unlike Bush, Clinton and Obama, who fight wars the way liberals always have).
That
tactic is, in effect, the vendetta. Its premise is that retribution for
the acts committed by an individual shall not be limited to that
individual, but shall be visited on those closest to him as well. It
isn’t limited to the Mafia or the Hatfields and McCoys.
There is precedent: While several Americans were being kidnapped in
Lebanon in the 1980s, President Reagan was wringing his hands. He
decided on a poor course of action in response: Iran-Contra. Meanwhile,
one Soviet citizen was kidnapped there. Soon after, a relative of an
instigating Lebanese cleric was taken captive by Soviet agents. He and
his sexual organs were soon returned, separately. The message was sent
and was received, and there were no further kidnappings of Soviets in
Lebanon.The assassination of the Russian ambassador to Turkey brings up some interesting possibilities in the war on terrorists. That same day there were rumors that Russian troops had been instructed not to take prisoners in the war in Syria. Also, there was some allusion to cutting off sexual organs of enemy fighters caught. Dealing harshly, not politically correctly, with terrorists is in the Russian character. If they say they will do something, they aren’t going to analyze themselves to death. They will just do it. It used to be in our character as well. Donald Trump has alluded to having a “secret plan” to defeat ISIS. When pressed to reveal it, he – understandably – said that he, unlike Barack Obama, didn’t care to inform the enemy of what to expect. Nevertheless, it’s only natural for us to wonder what Trump’s plan would entail, and the strategy and tactics he might employ. Especially after his previous comment about needing to take out the families of terrorists as well as the terrorist himself. There is one tactic that, since time immemorial, has served as an effective deterrent against those who would deliberately seek to harm others. And it’s a tactic that could be a significant part of an effective plan to defeat ISIS or any other terrorist entity. That tactic is, in effect, the vendetta. Its premise is that retribution for the acts committed by an individual shall not be limited to that individual, but shall be visited on those closest to him as well. It isn’t limited to the Mafia or the Hatfields and McCoys. Probably the greatest example in popular culture is from the1995 film “The Usual Suspects.” It describes how Keyser Soze became a mythical figure of vengeance after his own wife and family were killed [*Ed]. Think of him as Paul Kersey (the character played by Charles Bronson in the “Death Wish” films) on steroids. “He waits until his wife and kids are in the ground and then he goes after the rest of the mob. He kills their kids, he kills their wives, he kills their parents and their parents’ friends. He burns down the houses they live in and the stores they work in; he kills people that owe them money.” No matter how much of a wild-eyed jihadist suicide attacker you might be, bent on slaying as many infidels as possible before going to meet your blood-soaked moon god and receive your reward of multiple virgins to defile, wouldn’t it give you pause to know that your family back here on earth – your brothers and sisters, your parents, your cousins and your little nieces and nephews, maybe even their friends – would be obliterated with extreme prejudice in retribution? But Donald Trump, when president, may have what it takes to implement a policy that takes it even further. His words of a year ago (“You have to take out their families”) may be the clue: We need to go Keyser Söze on them. America once knew how to win wars. We won World War II. Nuclear weapons flattened two Japanese cities, and firebombs largely destroyed Tokyo. A lot of people died, including many non-combatants. It ended the war. The liberal way of fighting politically correct war has been demonstrated not to work. To win a war, you must do the things that kill the enemy, demoralize the enemy and make the enemy stop fighting. Donald Trump (who never served in uniform but who attended a military academy and has plenty of experience in how the world really works) understands that. Lt. Col. Damian Housman, USAF (Retired) flew as a navigator in C-141s and a weapons systems officer in F-4s, and has been all over the world. His civilian credits include public affairs work for the Air Force, the Army, and for local law enforcement, and he has worked for a Washington PR firm. He is a former field editor of International Combat Arms.
|
 |
