When it comes to influencing the behavior of people – to
exercise power over them and manipulate them to serve your agenda – the most
effective tool you can use is fear.
The terrorists who wish to start a war of the religions know
it, and this is why they design and execute spectacular operations that scare
people around the globe. Unfortunately, the opportunistic Jewish fifth column
in America
– which also wants to start a war of the religions – knows it too. This is why
it tries to outdo the terrorists by exploiting every incident that happens
(randomly or by design) to spark and feed a state of mass hysteria across the
nation.
Thomas Joscelyn who is a member of the unfunny band of
jokers calling itself Foundation for Defense of Democracies, is trying to do
just that in the article he wrote under the title: ”More of the Same” and the
subtitle: “Even after San Bernardino, Obama fails to change course.” It was
published on December 11, 2015 in the Weekly Standard.
A large part of the argument that Joscelyn makes is based on
what has come to be called the “surge.” Even if we buy the argument that this
operation was an American military success, it does not lead to the conclusion
that the fate of the Middle East would have been different if President Obama
had not ended that surge by withdrawing America 's
troops from Iraq .
The reason why nothing would have changed is simple to
understand. While the 2003 invasion of Iraq
was a conventional war in the sense that one regular army tackled another
regular army and defeated it, the occupation of Iraq
was a non-conventional undertaking that bore no resemblance to the occupation
of say, Germany or Japan after the
Second World War.
In fact, it is known that the Iraqi high command understood,
even before the start of the invasion, that America will destroy the Iraqi army
in no time at all. For this reason, Saddam's commanders planned for what came
after the invasion. What they planned was a guerrilla war – the kind that no
conventional army has ever defeated ... not America
in Vietnam , not the Soviet
Union in Afghanistan ,
not anyone anywhere.
What the guerrillas do is that they vanish from the site on
which an overwhelming force would come to tackle them, and reappear at another
site where they attack softer targets – the kind that's protected by a lesser
force. This is how the guerrillas grind a conventional army, especially one
that has come from far away to do battle with them. It is how they make the war
costly for the invader.
The guerillas know they have time on their side because they
do not feel the urge to go home, being at home already. This contrasts with the
status of the invading army that's far away from its home. It is an army that
spends a great deal of wealth in an increasingly futile attempt to defeat an
enemy it cannot even pinpoint. It feels it is lacking purpose; it is bored and
more than eager to go home.
What happened in Iraq with the surge that Joscelyn
is talking about was exactly that. However, he wants the readers to believe
that the war had ended with the surge. If this were the case, he should have
explained why he said that Obama did the wrong thing when he withdrew the
troops from Iraq
– a reasonable thing to do at the end of a war. Instead of explaining his own
reasoning, however, Joscelyn attacked President Obama, calling his reasoning
ahistorical and specious.
He quotes the President who said: “We should not be drawn
into a long and costly war in Iraq
and Syria
… That's what ISIL want. They know they can't defeat us on the battlefield.” If
anything, this shows the depth of understanding that the commander in chief had
for what the troops were facing, and what America was in for.
This is also where the pathetic clown that pretends to
defend the democracies has revealed how expansive his ignorance has been in
matters of such importance. He did so by asking: “If ISIL knows it 'can't
defeat' the American military, why would it 'want' a ground war?” Well, ISIL
wants a guerrilla war by which to humiliate America , you dickhead.
And now is the time for us to ask: What do these idiots do
to educate themselves about the situations against which they pretend to defend
the democracies? It is important to know this because what they have so far
demonstrated is that they could not protect a three-year-old from the attacks
of a four-year-old. The task would greatly overwhelm them.