On killing terrorists: Kill them each time you have the chance | Non-Intervention2 – Michael Scheuer


Readers of this blog know I long have argued that in the field of anti-terrorism the old adage that “dead men tell no tales” can be usefully revised as “dead terrorists kill no Americans.” Indeed, as I noted in the last piece I published, the willingness to act as President Trump did against Major General Soleimani is fully in line with the essence of an American First foreign policy. The attack was necessary, focused, and effective, and it was done – shocking as it is – in a unilateral manner. Trump used American skill and might to kill a killer of Americans, a man who would have kept killing Americans as long as he lived.

Since Trump’s action, the loyal citizenry has been treated to an in-depth look into the staunch anti-Americanism — perhaps treason is a better description —  of the Democratic Party and the mainstream media. These people have argued that (a) Soleimani was not such a bad fellow, (b) that the president did not have the constitutional power to protect Americans against an imminent threat, and that (c) killing Soleimani may result in more Iranian attacks and so more dead Americans.

The first two of the foregoing points are simply stupid, unsupportable, constitutionally clueless, and deliberately deceitful. The third point merits only a simple response that asserts “no shit”.  The point to be made here is that Soleimani will never, ever, kill another American. Other Iranians or some of their proxies may, but old, saintly Soleimani – as a rotting chunk of dead and shredded meat – will never kill another American. He also will never commit an act that provides a future, war-mongering president the chance to lie the republic into a war with Iran.

This, I think, is the important point. An American First foreign policy means that Americans carry their own water, they act with their own strength to kill the nation’s enemies before those foes kill them, and they make hard decisions, act unilaterally, expect feckless criticism from their effeminate allies, and accept the reality that any human decision may lead to unfortunate and often predictable consequences that will be painful and have to addressed. But Americans also recognize the value of permanently erasing one lethal problem – in this case Soleimani – and moving ahead knowing that it can no longer harm them.

This line of argument regarding Soleimani, I think, is underscored sharply by Bill Clinton’s failure to kill Osama bin Laden when it would have made a substantial difference to U.S. security. As I have said in several pieces, Clinton and his political and military lieutenants had ten chances to capture or kill Osama bin Laden in 1998 and 1999. Clinton also had the chance to kill him and wipe out al-Qaeda’s main infrastructure and many of its members in Kandahar Province after al-Qaeda nearly sank the USS Cole in Yemen in October, 2000. (NB: Incidentally, some of the 9/11 attackers were in training at camps in Kandahar at that time.)

Clinton and his fellow gutless political and military incompetents turned down every one of those chances, and blocked all CIA unilateral operations to do so. When the Special Forces killed Bin Laden in May, 2011, it was 12 years too late to make a decisive difference. Bin Laden’s aim, since the late 1980s, had been to create a self-perpetuating jihad, and at his death that aspiration was a reality. It still is.

That was, of course, only one of the disastrous and predictable repercussions flowing from Clinton’s failure to act, and almost certainly it was not the most disastrous one. The greatest disaster for Americans was the decision of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney – supported by their lickspittle Colin Powell – to use the 9/11 attack and the still very much alive Osama bin Laden as justifications for a “war on terror”. That war was first headlined by the disastrous invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, then by the more catastrophic invasion and occupation of Iraq, and, through both wars, by the still raging attacks at home on the civil liberties of Americans.

Last I checked both wars are still on-going, and both are still producing dead and maimed Americans, as well as enormous financial waste. Both could have been avoided by Clinton killing or capturing bin Laden between 1998 and the end of 2000, and such an action also would have prevented the 9/11 attack as that operation only occurred because Bin Laden was alive, sanctioned it, and overruled his advisory council, most of whose senior members opposed the attack.

The splendid America First killing of Soleimani permits all Americans – including disloyal Democrats and lying journalists – to be sure he will not kill any more of their countrymen. They can also be sure that he and his actions can never give a future president the chance to lie his way into a war with Iran. Other Iranians may provide that opportunity to a war-mongering president – the most common variety of president until Trump – but Soleimani will not.

So, well done, Mr. Trump, and thank you. But now get off your ass and get those remaining 5,000-plus U.S. troops out of Iraq after they first utterly destroying every military installation we built there. Ditto for Afghanistan.

Source: On killing terrorists: Kill them each time you have the chance | Non-Intervention2

About SARTRE 4368 Articles
"Populism" best describes the approach to SARTRE's perspective on Politics. Realities, suggest that American Values can be restored with an appreciation of "Pragmatic Anarchism." Reforms will require an Existential approach. "Ideas Move the World," and SARTRE'S intent is to stir the conscience of those who desire to bring back a common sense, moral and traditional value culture for America.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.