From The Gathering Storm

There’s a new counterinsurgency manual for the U.S. military and you and everyone, including Al Qaeda terrorists and insurgents, can read the entire 282-page manual. The counterinsurgency field manual’s cover reads in part, “Distribution Restriction: Approved for Public Release; Distribution is unlimited.” How would a U.S. soldier or Marine now in Iraq or Afghanistan feel knowing the hot-off-the-presses counterinsurgency manual is available to the “bad guys” at the same time it is available to the “good guys”?

Think that’s insane? Wait ‘till you hear what’s in it. Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer and touches on some of the unreal highlights which read like they came out of a Berkeley California moon-bat think-tank.

[The manual] prescribed an excellent head-cold treatment – for a cancer patient. The text is a mush of pop-zen mantras such as “Sometimes doing nothing is the best reaction,” “The best weapons do not shoot,” or “The more force used, the less effective it is.”

That’s just nutty. Should we have done nothing in the wake of 9/11? Would everything have been OK if we’d just been nicer? What non-lethal “best weapons” might have snagged Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora, where the problem was too little military force, not too much violence? Should we have sent fewer troops to Iraq, where inadequate numbers crippled everything we attempted? Will polite chats with tribal chiefs stop the sectarian violence drenching Iraq in blood?

Here’s’ some more from the handbook from the New York Times which is nodding in approval.

The doctrine warns against some of the practices used early in the war, when the military operated without an effective counterinsurgency playbook. It cautions against overly aggressive raids and mistreatment of detainees. Instead it emphasizes the importance of safeguarding civilians and restoring essential services, and the rapid development of local security forces.

Restoring essential services? Is the military supposed to be ConEdison, now?

Stressing the need to build up local institutions and encourage economic development, the manual cautions against putting too much weight on purely military solutions. “Tactical success guarantees nothing,” it says. Noting the need to interact with the people to gather intelligence and understand the civilians’ needs, the doctrine cautions against hunkering down at large bases. “The more you protect your force, the less secure you are,” it asserts.

What kind of ass-backward logic is that? I’m afraid the moon-bats have infiltrated the Pentagon. But Peters gets right to root of the problem.

It’s hard enough to bear the timidity of our civilian leaders – anxious to start wars but without the guts to finish them – but now military leaders have fallen prey to political correctness. Unwilling to accept that war is, by its nature, a savage act and that defeat is immoral, influential officers are arguing for a kinder, gentler approach to our enemies.

They’re going to lead us into failure, sacrificing our soldiers and Marines for nothing: Political correctness kills.

The new counterinsurgency doctrine recommends forbearance, patience, understanding, non-violent solutions and even outright passivity. Unfortunately, our enemies won’t sign up for a replay of the Summer of Love in San Francisco. Our leaders, in and out of uniform, must regain their moral courage. We can’t fight wars of any kind if the entire chain of command runs for cover every time an ambitious journalist cries, “War crime!”

Today’s military does not recognize the enemy for what they are.

Astonishingly, the doctrine ignores faith-inspired terrorism and skirts ethnic issues in favor of analyzing yesteryear’s political insurgencies. It would be a terrific manual if we returned to Vietnam circa 1963, but its recommendations are profoundly misguided when it comes to fighting terrorists intoxicated with religious visions and the smell of blood.

The Pentagon has forgotten how they once fought an enemy “intoxicated with religious visions and the smell of blood”. Ask the Marines who fought a fanatical and ever more desperate Japanese Army in the Pacific where the mud Marines learned that the best route to victory was the brutal assault of the enemy and their total destruction. Almost all of Iwo Jima’s 21000 Japanese defenders were killed.

Why did the officers in question avoid the decisive question of religion? Because the answers would have been ugly. Wars of faith and tribe are immeasurably crueler and tougher to resolve than ideological revolts. A Maoist in Malaya could be converted. But Islamist terrorists who regard death as a promotion are not going to reject their faith any more than an ethnic warrior can – or would wish to – change his blood identity.

So the doctrine writers ignored today’s reality.

Absolutely correct. And it doesn’t stop with the military. Most of our leaders fail to, or better yet, deliberately ignore the real threat facing us – an enemy that believes 100% that it will be victorious both on the battlefield against our military, and off the battlefield with the imposition and infiltration of Shariah law.
Sign up for my free WEEKLY STORM REPORT and receive a synopsis of the most important weekly news revealing the intimidation, infiltration and disinformation tactics used to soften-up the non-Muslim world for domination.

Be Sociable, Share!