It occurs to me that I’ve yet to comment on the now infamous (and oft misrepresented) Tom Tancredo remarks concerning potential US military responses to a WMD attack on American soil—remarks that a number of rightwing bloggers (as well as just about every blogger on the left side of the ‘sphere, given the subject matter) have been quick to criticize—often quite forcefully.
Thankfully, Juliette, Instapunk, Froggy, and Allah have saved me the trouble.
I will offer this one observation, however: it doesn’t matter to me whether or not the US actually would unleash such hell on Muslim holy sites. What matters to me is that our enemy knows that no military response is ever off the table. The US has done—and continues to do—enough good in this world that it need not constantly strive for the kind of cheap grace that comes from loudly and publicly eschewing pragmatic analysis about our military response options for the sake of placating those who have every reason to fear us. Hugh Hewitt writes:
I want to be very clear on this. No responsible American can endorse the idea that the U.S. is in a war with Islam. That is repugnant and wrong, and bloggers and writers and would-be bloggers and writers have to chose sides on this, especially if you are a center-right blogger. The idea that all of Islam is the problem is a fringe opinion. It cannot be welcomed into mainstream thought because it is factually wrong. If Tancredo’s blunder does not offend you, then you do not understand the GWOT.
Perhaps. But more likely, what Hewitt is really suggesting is that adopting an official position against Islam is a strategic blunder. And he’s right—for the US to openly declare war on all of Islam is foolish, counterproductive, and doesn’t jibe with the facts on the ground. But being prepared to consider the most devastating response to a most devastating attack—one that, when threatened from a position of power could, in fact, force the mainstream Muslim world to turn on its own extremists out of worry for our potential retaliatory action—is hardly irresponsible. What is irresponsible is failing to prepare for every contingency by failing to imagine every contingency. And those so outraged by Tancredo’s remarks should remember that the same kind of criticisms were leveled at Herman Kahn, whose On Thermonuclear War—while publicly reviled—was a handbook for pragmatically thinking through Cold War nuclear brinksmanship.
The bottom line is, the US has amassed the most powerful military on earth; and it is hardly a sin to admit to that, or to admit to a willingness to consider every option available to us when it comes to waging a war that has been declared and waged against us. The idea that Tancredo’s remarks will somehow inflame those in Arab street not already inclined to such anti-American hysteria is at best dubious—and, in the most important regard, completely irrelevant. I see nothing wrong with reminding the world, as Tancredo has, that the US is a military superpower that, while it doesn’t act rashly—and while it strives to fight the most the most humane wars possible (deploying smart munitions and working constantly to improve the precision of its weaponry to reduce civilian casualties)—is, first and foremost, a protector of US citizens.
****
More, from Michelle Malkin; see also, Rich Lowry.
****
update: make sure you read through the comments on Juliette’s site, where Juliette, Chris Cross, and others do a better job than I have of making the case for keeping the option on the table. More discussion here and here.
****
update 2: More here, from Leon H
****
update 3: Further thoughts from Joe at Cold Fury and Frances Porretto
I think bombing Mecca would be a mistake for different reasons than any I’m read. Apart from the fact that it would turn all Muslims actively against us, as opposed to just having them all sympathize with our enemies, it would set their religion free of any anchors. With Mecca a radioactive wasteland, there would be no more Hajj–one of the 5 pillars of the Muslim faith. At that point, there could be a sort of voluntary diaspora. It wouldn’t actually do anything to degrade their ability to harm us or support those who would, but it would set them free to roam into increasingly far-fetched theological notions. After all, with a pillar of the faith removed, new pillars would rise to take its place. Maybe the new fifth pillar involves killing an infidel? Who knows. Regardless, it would give rise to a fresh batch of messianic militants, and that would hardly be a good thing.
What would be a far far far greater deterrent would be the threat to bomb… Riyadh. And Tehran. And Damascus. It’s a mistake to ever lose site of the fact that most press outlets throughout the Middle East–the very root sources of anti-American propaganda which so steers the Arab street against us–are wholly or in part controlled by the relevant local authoritarian governments. Forget about targeting symbols, and focus on targeting decision makers–and not with the kind of bombs that can “miss.” If you’re going to incinerate a city, make it one that matters, not one where the year-round population is actually relatively small.
Well, as I tried to make clear, what matters to me is only a willingness to consider it as an option. If it were to be ruled out on strategic or tactical grounds, fine. But my point was that there is nothing inherently wrong with raising it as a hypothetical—particularly in the context Tancredo did.
And my larger point, I guess, was that we shouldn’t be afraid to proceed from a position of power. Too often, we seem to feel ashamed. And while humility is all well and good, there may come a time when it proves an introspective luxury, and we’ll have to set it aside in order to assert that our way of life will not be challenged idly.
Beck, they would have to deal with the idea that Allah had failed to save Mecca. How could that be?
I prefer the option of leaving it on the table. Let is be something they would worry about.
Sorry Jeff, while a nice try, it doesn’t change my mind. I sent Tancredo mail telling him what a blithering moron he is and suggesting that if he actually had a “Y” chromosome he’d resign.
I’ll send another letter to him repeating the suggestion in words of fewer syllables so his staff is more likely to show my message to him.
Jeff: Yeah, I agreed with your main points. I was really just being sorta tangential. You’re absolutely right that no strategic option should be taken off the table. I just felt like rambling on the general subject.
Carin: Considering the number of absurd things believed by any & all religions, that shouldn’t be too hard. After all, Allah allowed Ali to be assasinated. Besides, you could say its incineration is really just a transformation to some ethereal realm blah, blah, blah, blah, you know how it works.
Robin: An Eagle doesn’t pull out half of its talons in order to be fair or considerate or humane. Why would it be rational for the United States–or any nation–to deny itself a potentially effective military option when the alternative is to passively allow the incineration of a giant percentage of its citizens?
Well, the fact that we even have competing responses here means this is not a settled question—which, in fact, was the point.
To act like it is—to the degree that even broaching it is considered morally repugnant—bespeaks a close-mindedness I’m not willing to abide.
As I just got done arguing with Bill Ardolino on IM, I don’t necessarily believe that any kind of an attack on Muslim holy sites is strategically profitable; but that’s not important. What is important is that our enemies not be allowed to rely on our “rationality”—and that they understand that, because we are in a position of military power, we are capable of a great many things. Such might not actually deter al Qaeda—but it could conceivably promote less tolerance toward them on the part of rank and file Muslims who are no longer quite so certain we’ll go out of our way to play nice.
Damn it–tried to trackback, didn’t work (haloscan sucks).
Anyway, I have some questions for Hugh, Dayfdd, et al:
(1) Did you support the bombing of Afghanistan during Ramadan? If so, why? And how do you distinguish the arguments FOR bombing during Ramadan following 9/11 from those AGAINST bombing Mecca following a nuclear attack on US soil?
(2) Are places like Mecca and Medina the “centers of gravity” for the Islamists? Are they the things/places they value most and what give them their reason for fighting? If not, where/what is the Islamist center of gravity?
(3) If Islamists begin to base their operations out of Mecca or other “holy sites”, does that make Mecca a legitimate target?
(4) Is Mecca a legitimate target under ANY circumstances?
(5) Distinguish the potential targeting of Mecca in the War on Terror from the burning of Atlanta during the Civil War.
NOTE–this is not dealing with the whole “Islam is a religion of violence” nonsense–don’t care about that. Ain’t relevant. I just want to know what answers critics of Tancredo have for the questions posed…
The only thing worse then Tancredo’s remarks are people who say we should promise never to harm Islam’s holy sights. Hewitt’s insistence that “Gee, Mr. Islamofacist terrorist … Sir. No matter how many people you kill, we will NEVER be so un-PC as to threaten your holy sights.” And the Arab street will rise UP!!! Then it will sit down again having forgotten what it was doing. How many times have we been threatened with the Arab street?
The basics: The President is in charge of foreign policy and war making. He has already stated that all options are on the table. When the third string (the politicians in our esteemed congress) opine on matters that are beyond their perview, matters are muddled. If all the peons in the legislative branch simply shut their mouths and let the President run things perhaps we’d have a better time communicating. Sen Kennedy: blub, blub. Oh
, by the way, amatures in in all realms might just be quiet.
Does tht include amateur spellers?
The concept that we aren’t fighting Islam is misguided and in most cases wishful thinking. If “extremist” Islam didn’t exist what would change? Islam is still a cancerous growth responsible for poverty, hatred, and slavery where ever its tenacles can gain ground.
It allows no tolerance, not even allowing its own people to leave on pain of death. No other faith can be tolerated, no other philosophy permitted.
So the West continues with a charade that we aren’t at war with Islam. One question, exactly what does one see in the Islamic’s world’s radio, tv and press? Moderation? Even in Britain, Holland, the US and Canada we only hear from Moslems about the comming Caliphate.
The extremists don’t exist because of the West but because of Islam’s inability to come to terms with the modern world. Since its founding as the Moslem Brotherhood, these extremists have always been supported and funded by the elites of Moslem society. Today they couldn’t exist without this support yet we pretend that this support doesn’t exist. Hello?
Worse the meme that using nuclear weapons would turn Islam against us is about as credible as invading Iraq would have the Arab street enraged. Yeah, heard it about a million times before. What will deter the fanaticsd is what deterred Tehran in 1980, the knowledge that the US was ready to inflict incredible, regime destroying and possibly biblical damage if it were denied its goals.
Those who talk today of nuance, restraint, moderation have about as much hope of seeing such a policy succeed as reasoning with Pookie the wonder dog to release his rib bone.
If a nuclear weapon does go up I’ll be interested in hearing from these morons on why restraint must be exercised and why we must ensure “the Muslim world” does not hate us.
If they do unleash the dogs of war!
I’ve gotta say I’m really surprised by Hewitt and some of the other people who are savaging Tancredo. First of all, he never used the words “nuke Mecca”. That has become a convenient club to pound him with among some of the people on the right, and all of those on the left. Jeff and others are correct. We need not threaten any target publicly , we simply have to let our enemies and their sympathizers and enablers assume that each and every thing of value, and each and every one of them is on the list. This is very basic stuff. Human nature dictates that the awareness of a threat will modify behavior. I have no idea what is causing the visceral reaction in some of these people, (and the extremely unhelpful use of words like “blithering moron”, which your commenter above lifted from Podhoritz at nro). Did we take any target off the table during the cold war? No, the Soviets were well aware that we would scour the earth behind the curtain in response to a nuke attack. It’s psychology at work, the certain knowledge that every last thing that they value is at risk. I think that is a good thing. And one more thing, do you see the savages dicking around with the Chinese? They piss all over Islam within their own borders, but because they are perceived as strong, even cruel, the fascists prefer to strike what they see as the softer target in the west.
Christopher, the issue of attacking Afghanistan during Ramadan, and holding out Mecca as a retaliation target are not comparable at all.
Ramadan was a red herring as Islamists themselves had no history of recognizing a Ramadan truce and there was no reason for the United States to enforce an islamic holiday truce where its enemies could regroup.
In contrast, holding out Mecca as a retaliation target is endorsing what is essentially a war crime. And I am using that term in its rigorous sense, not the MoveOn.org moonbat sense. The targeting of a religious site solely due to its status as a religious site is a war crime.
I’m all for keeping all options open. Jeff knows I’m not squeemish. If there is a target suitable for a nuclear weapon, fine. Light ‘em up.
But I don’t think that the Bush administration or Tom Tancredo should be openly speculating about war crimes. The Bush administration hasn’t and won’t. Tancredo has.
Robin —
It is not a war crime to attack a strategic target. Thankfully, we’ve shaken the prohibition of firing on mosques if it’s from within mosques that we are being targeted. This was an important step, as jihadis can no longer hide inside mosques assured that our “decency” and “respect for their culture” will keep our troops from defending themselves or, in extreme cases, launching an offensive.
Similarly, it makes no sense to rule out certain areas as untouchable unless your goal is to assert a ready-made sanctuary for your enemy.
Was Hiroshima a war crime?
Dresden? Tokyo? Berlin?
Was targeting Moscow with 50 or 60 large nuclear weapons “speculating about war crimes”?
That’s just weak. We did not start this conflict, we were dragged in by the crazies. Letting them know that there is an ultimate price to pay for their actions is the sane thing to do, and I’d bet money that they have been so informed, quietly and firmly, by the U.S.
You could even say that it would be a crime NOT to tell them what to expect if they don’t get their house in order.
Ramadan was a red herring as Islamists themselves had no history of recognizing a Ramadan truce and there was no reason for the United States to enforce an islamic holiday truce where its enemies could regroup.
So if Ramadan is one Islamist tradition we can freely breach since Muslims themselves don’t care that much about it, and Mecca is one that we must not, not ever, ever, ever even threaten…
Where do the several dozen other holy sites or traditions fit in? Is Medina a permissible target? Can we do “carpet porking?”
The targeting of a religious site solely due to its status as a religious site is a war crime.
Good thing it’s not being targeted solely because it’s a religious site. Rather, Mecca is what the Islamists value the most. It is their pivot point, their center of gravity, etc etc. It is the center and heart of their ideology. That imbues it with a strategic value independent of its religious significance.
If the Islamists valued the local In N Out Burger, that’d make it a viable potential target regardless of how many other people really liked those burgers.
That other Muslims ALSO consider the site important is ultimately incidental to whether Mecca can be considered a legitimate target.
But as to the war crime argument–suppose we treated Mecca like Atlanta. Simply burn it to the ground. Minimal loss of life. Maximum strategic benefit of denying the Islamists that which they value the most–war crime?
This statement was taken way out of context. Before this thing ever ends…something extreme is gonna have to be done…and I’ll bet you the left don’t like it when it does.
Well, nothing should ever be off the table in a war.
Of course in a practical sense, nuking Mecca makes no sense. It doesn’t solve any problems and it gives Al Qaeda exactly what they want: real grounds for a pan-Islamic holy war.
In fact, if I were a necessarily deranged but also cynical and calculating Al Qaeda leader, I might see nuking Mecca and scapegoating the West as a brilliant plan.
Everyone, please continue to raise this issue and discuss it with as many people as possible, no matter what form of retaliation–if any–you would favor in response to a WMD attack.
What would actually occur is unknowable.
What US policy should be is far, far less important than what the enemy and its supporters think our response would be.
They must fear the worst outcome for themselves–whatever they think that would be–because that is what will happen.
I’m not willing to commit to the position that a strategic attack on Mecca makes no sense. I’d rather let the circumstances dictate the response.
I cannot express my astonishment enough.
First of all, that an enemy may “value” a city has never made it a legitimate target for destruction in war.
Secondly, Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Berlin etc. were in fact troublesome bombings. While those cities did contain military related targets, our bombing technology of the era was so crude that bombing those cities caused massive destruction as collateral damage. Indeed, at times the destruction of industrial workers themselves were contemplated as justification for the area bombing of cities. And as an avid student of military history I still find that troubling, but those cities did have military targets.
I do not propose any sanctuaries. I never have. I’ve never condemned the destruction of mosques that sheltered armed combatants. My reaction to Sites video? Shoot ‘em again. Want a lecture on Monte Cassino? I can give one. The day that Mecca houses the headquarters of an infantry corps, or the arms manufacturing industry of a nation with which we are at war, great – carpet bomb with my blessings.
But Mecca is however nothing today but a religious site. And its destruction would indeed be a pure war crime.
Lets grow up here.
First of all, that an enemy may “value†a city has never made it a legitimate target for destruction in war.
Well, yeah it has, or did both Atlanta and Dresden burn to the ground because of a rogue cow?
That Dresden, et al. were “troublesome” does not negate their legitimacy as targets. Moreover, you note that such targets contained “military related targets”–and my contention is that, as Mecca is the focal point upon which all Islamist attention is centered on; it too is a “military related target.”
But Mecca is however nothing today but a religious site. And its destruction would indeed be a pure war crime.
Nobody is talking about bombing Mecca TODAY. The entire debate is centered on what do we do following a nuclear attack on US soil.
That changes the calculus a bit. And the more and more the Islamists feel that we shall NEVER violate the sanctity of Mecca, the more it will become a sanctuary.
This is a war. All options must be on the table.
The discussion also needs to begin on The Price That’s Too High To Pay. What can be used as a deterent to suicide bombers? If they aren’t afraid of their own death, what will stop them? The deaths of their families? Nations? Holy sites?
All must be considered.
But all I’m arguing, Robin, is it makes no sense to rule out bombing Mecca. As Christopher says, we’re not talking about doing this today. Nor are we talking about doing so under all circumstances. Instead, what we’re talking about is letting our enemies know that we are willing to do just about anything in the event of a WMD attack on one of our cities—that there will be no pre-negotiated safe havens. And not only are we letting our enemies know, but we are letting those disinterested Muslims who allow extremists to operate without bother inside their communities know, as well.
Incidentally, isn’t Wahhabi the state religion of Saudi Arabia? And isn’t it the Wahhabi sect that has declared war on the US?
Jeff, I find Christopher’s suggestion that because of the Islamists “attention” on Mecca that it is then a military target to be itself completely indefensible.
Why not just steal the damn meteorite?
Someone pointed out that the emperor of Japan had to broadcast to it’s citizens that he wasn’t a deity. That seems to have worked rather well.
Fraud needs exposing.
Jeff, I find Christopher’s suggestion that because of the Islamists “attention†on Mecca that it is then a military target to be itself completely indefensible.
Care to toss in a “why” or two?
Hmmm.
The only decision that would either place Mecca on the target list or off the target list is this:
Are we still in a *limited war*, i.e. The Almost Global War on Terror(1), or are we in *total war*?
If we’re still in limited war mode than any thought of nuking Mecca is clearly not acceptable.
If we’re in total war mode, because an American city got nuked and 2+ million citizens are dead or dying very graphically on tv, then Mecca is clearly on the list.
The essential aspect of total war is that you’re fighing the totality of the enemy. You’re not making limited strikes at military manufacturing facilities. You’re firebombing cities to incinerate civilians to break their morale and will to fight. You’re nuking cities, including Mecca, to break their will. You’re inflicting every single possible horror on the enemy to school them. Remember this is why Germany and Japan are still so pacifist today. They experience total war, and they still remember it.
Currently many muslims support terror and murder of infidels because it comes at no cost to themselves. If a suicide bomber kills 50 Londoners, no skin off his ass. But if the answer to such attacks were the wholesale firebombing of muslim cities, inflicting the kinds of casualties that the Japanes in Tokyo suffered, then such thinking doesn’t hold.
And there is another point to consider also. What makes anyone think, even for a moment, that the American public would accept the murder of 1-2 million American citizens without responding with overwhelming force and violence and a brace of nukes?
What makes anyone think, even for a fraction of a second, that muslims won’t react in exactly the same way to the nuking of ANY muslim city, as if they would if Mecca were nuked? If there’s no appreciable difference, then what difference is there? If there is a difference, as many people are asserting, then why don’t you show me real life examples of where muslims didn’t go absolutely stark raving bonkers when infidels bombed muslims?
That is your arugment isn’t it? That muslims would accept the nuking of a major muslim city, such as Tehran, with aplomb but become unhinged if Mecca were nuked.
Why not give me some justification for that train of thought. And make it good, otherwise I’ll enjoy myself too much tearing it apart.
(1) except for that bit between Texas and Mexico. We can send hundreds of Special Forces soldiers to the mountains of Afghanistan, but we can’t send 20 cops and a bag of doughnuts to the Texas border.
Because Christopher, you’ve just eliminated all distinctions between military and non-military targets.
And you’ve even eliminated any rational correlation in retaliation targets. If we had gotten into a nuclear exchange with the Soviet Union, we would have been destroying the civilian population of an actual state that had conducted such attacks upon us. In the case of threatening Mecca for an islamist WMD strike, you would be threatening a civilian population that had no connection to the perpetrators of mass death other than shared religion. I can think of nothing that more exemplifies “war crime”.
Frankly, I’m baffled why you think I would take you seriously. I would no more take seriously the suggestion that in retaliation of an IRA mass casualty attack that the Blarney Stone should be nuked.
Ed, your definition of “total war” goes far beyond any definition I’ve seen before. And despite your contention, your definition exceeds that of the practice of World War II. Total war is warfare against a state or society’s entire warfighting capability.
It isn’t the equivalent of genocide.
If the IRA nuked an American city, I’d have no problem retaliating against Belfast—but only with a neutron bomb. So would could mosey in after and have a Guinness.
Because Christopher, you’ve just eliminated all distinctions between military and non-military targets.
No I haven’t. I’m not suggesting burning down a city with no significance to the Islamists. The inviobility and sanctity of Mecca and “the holy land” is what gives the Islamists their reason for fighting. To completely deny them something that otherwise is the reason for their very existence as a hostile entity seems supremely “military related.”
In the case of threatening Mecca for an islamist WMD strike, you would be threatening a civilian population that had no connection to the perpetrators of mass death other than shared religion.
(1) If Saudi Arabia were behind the strike, would you accept Mecca as a legitimate target?
(2) If we targeted Mecca the same way Sherman targeted Atlanta, would you accept it as a legitimate target? (asked this before, you didn’t really answer) Minimal loss of life, maximum demoralizing effect.
Frankly, I’m baffled why you think I would take you seriously.
Your bafflement is not likely a new feeling for you.
Jeff,
No worries, Guinness is brewed in Dublin.
Christopher,
my intention is to debate adults. Evidently I made an error here.
Robin,
In the aftermath of a dirty bomb detonation in this country by verified al Qaeda or other Islamists elements, please give an example of a military target.
Robin,
You raised the snark level in this debate by using this phrase: “Lets grow up here.” It shouldn’t be surprising that others respond in kind.
I find your utter unwillingness and seeming inability to event ATTEMPT to address the Atlanta:Mecca question I posed rather amusing in light of:
And as an avid student of military history…
Guess history only goes back about 60 years, don’t it?
And I still want to keep open the option of “carpet porking.”
I honestly don’t see how nuking Mecca would achieve anything worthwhile in a military sense. Yes, Chris, I get the point you are making with Atlanta, but I don’t see it having the same effect on the Wahabbi goobers. The reason is that I think for the hardcore Al Qaeda types, the religious aspect is secondary. For them it is all about exerting power, not religious self-enlightenment.
If Mecca were storing a military target (IE plunking a nuke reactor downtown), I’d say leave the option on the table. But, to just torch it for psyop effect would do more harm than good, in my opinion.
Blackjack—the debate is not over whether it would do more harm than good in your opinion; the debate is over the consideration of this option along with others.
Once you have a few possibilities on the table, you can go with focus groups, market studies, etc. to find out whether there is a factual basis for it to do more harm than good—based on real information. But if you preemptively rule it out based on the opinions of people who—it is certainly to be hoped—do not think like Islamofascist hoodlums, then you’ll never properly evaluate the option.
So opine away…..but if you do not mean to represent the Islamofascist worldview yourself, do not be surprised if those making policy completely ignore you.
Myself, I’m kind of fond of the “Imam XXX has preached a sermon of hate against the US on Friday, MMMM DDDD at the YYY mosque. Please be aware that XXX has made himself a target of the US, and that any of his future sermons—at YYY or elsewhere—may be interrupted without further notice, regard for the well-being of his listeners, or concern over the structural integrity of YYY.”
I suspect that this message, and a couple dozen 500-pound bombs, would drastically change the dynamics of the middle east—potentially in a good, Darwinian way.
But, y’know—I’m willing to run it past the Psyops focus group folks to see if it actually deserves a good effectiveness rating.
Umm, OK. But, I want to represent the Islamofascist worldview. Truth be told, I kind of find the whole burkha thing sexy.
The idea that all of Islam is the problem is a fringe opinion. It cannot be welcomed into mainstream thought because it is factually wrong. If Tancredo’s blunder does not offend you, then you do not understand the GWOT.
Hmmmm….I guess I’m not only on the fringe, but factually wrong. WAKE UP, PEOPLE!!!!
Has anyone else noticed that the Phils were nine-and-a-half games back 14 days ago, and they’re three back today?
See what you’ve gone and done, Jeff? This is what you get for straying from the official list of Safe Blogging Topics. Here, for your future reference, are the approved Safe Blogging Topics:
1) Pictures of kittens and/or hot babes
2) Caption contests
3) Bitching about blogspot (N/A in your case)
You should probably print that out and tape it to an easily visible location near your computer.
For the children.
War is troublesome. Starting one might arguably be regarded as the original “war crime.” When somebody is in the process of trying to destroy you, your entire family, and everything you hold dear, the only thing limiting your response is whether you think, for some reason, that maybe you deserve to be destroyed.
I don’t think I deserve to be destroyed. And if my government nukes Mecca in response to an al-Qaeda nuclear attack against my country, I still won’t think I deserve to be destroyed.
Jeff,
I’m not willing to commit to the position that a strategic attack on Mecca makes no sense. I’d rather let the circumstances dictate the response.
I’ll accept that the threat may have deterrent value and thus should not be taken off the table, but you can really conceive of a circumstance where it does make sense to nuke Mecca? The only one I can come up with is a massive multi-nuke assault on the West by a (currently nonexistent) pan-Islamic leadership, and even then the logical response is to nuke their population centers and military bases, and hitting their religious symbols is basically an afterthought to wiping out 90% of Muslims.
I mean, it’s not like killing the head vampire. All the Muslims aren’t going to fall over or melt into dust because we vaporize their meteorite.
I didn’t specify a nuclear strike—though of course that, too, is on the table. I just said that I can’t commit to taking Mecca or Medina as a target off the table. I lack the imagination, prior to morning coffee, to conceive of some exact scenario (perhaps after a major WMD attack on San Francisco, jihadi leaders take refuge in Mecca from which they begin releasing religious edicts calling for Muslims—including those within the US—to step up the war against the Great Satan, believing the US will be too afraid of inflaming Muslims to risk attacking).
Tancredo made a comment that was probably a political blunder but in reality would be very effective. To specify Tancredo said (to paraphrase), ‘What if we threatened to take out their holy sites?” The interviewer then clairfies Mecca and we know the blow-up from there.
I’m not sure if the government needs to rationalize a specific reason for ‘taking out’ Mecca. Let them decied what taking out means. The key in the whole thing to me is “threaten”. Does it offend a bunch of people like Hugh and his regergitators on the other blogs? Perhaps, but if the simple use of a threat, real or not will protect the ones I love from a horrific death then I’m all for it.
You can all break down the Vatican vs. the Irish to evaluations of Hiroshima all you want but if it takes more “MAD” to keep us safe then I’m fine with that. If the terrorists never simulaneously nuke our cities then we may never have to consider it seriously.
Our enemy in this war considers it very specifically to be a religious war—and they have claim to some naming rights until they are defeated. Frankly, what is most offensive to me is some commentators consider the very discussion of some tactics to be off-limits. Why should that be so?
http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2005/07/24/what-is-the-friggin-deal-with-hugh-hewitt/
Thanks,
Jack Risko
I want to interject, and perhaps sway this debate a little. The nuke is not the ultimate weapon. It is a powerful deterrent. However, we are fighting a spiritual war against evil. Prayer is THE most powerful weapon we have against that.
Hmmmm.
@ Robin Roberts
1. “Ed, your definition of “total war†goes far beyond any definition I’ve seen before. And despite your contention, your definition exceeds that of the practice of World War II. Total war is warfare against a state or society’s entire warfighting capability.”
LOL. You’ve never read of the firebombing of Dresden and the resulting firestorm? How about the repeated firebombings of Tokyo and other Japanese cities? That is an example of total war. Many targets bombed and attacked during WWII were military targets. Under the targeting rules of that time ALL cities were military targets since they were, by definition, centers of commerce, industry and production.
What about MAD? Mutual Assured Destruction? You know that policy we had during the Cold War that stipulated the extermination of all civilian populations of our enemies should they try a nuclear first strike? That is also an example of total war.
But hey, since you don’t know what total war is I’ll even link to the left webiste WikkiPedia. Which I frankly don’t use because I don’t agree with a lot of the nonsense there. On the principles of Total War, they’re not too far off.
2. “It isn’t the equivalent of genocide. “
If the Japanese hadn’t surrendered then both the Japanese people and the Japanese language would both be extinct right now. This was the policy of the United States of America because nobody expected the Japanese people to fight any less ferociously on their homeland. The only thing that prevented it was the capitulation by the Emperor, who had the authority to force his people into unconditional surrender.
Do you see muslims fighting significantly less ferociously? How do you think they’d fight after a muslim city, ANY muslim city, got nuked by America? And yet the muslim world is fractured and balkanized with no single titular head or authority, either secular or religious. There literally is nobody available to offer a surrender, and then have it stick with the populace obeying the provisions.
Without an authority that can surrender, then can BE no surrender because not all factions and parties will accept it.
Should total war become a reality, the outcome will not follow the Japanese path because there isn’t a single authority. And because of that the result must be either sufficient death and horror that all remaining muslims recoil from experiencing it ever again, or the utter extermination of all muslims.
Logic is a bitch.
Hmmmm.
1. “I honestly don’t see how nuking Mecca would achieve anything worthwhile in a military sense. …”
If I may interject here.
One of the rather odd aspects of this AGWOT is that the average muslims is absolutely secure in the knowledge that he/she is not a target of America and will never be. Contrast this with the civilian populations of North Vietnam, North Korea, Japan, Germany and Italy.
What the obliteration of Mecca would do is completely erase any thought the average muslim might have about the potential consequence of fighting America. Post-nuking of Mecca would show the Islamic world that absolutely nothing, NOTHING, is beyond the pale and that every muslim on Earth, who supports attacks on America, is subject to death.
Or do you contest my assertion that the average muslim doesn’t feel any direct fear of America? After all we’re the nation of GPS guided concrete bombs to reduce collateral damage. On a per/100,000 population basis an Israeli is probably far more likely to become a casualty of a suicide bomber than any particular muslim is of an American strike.
So this easily makes supporting attacsk on America a “no skin off my back” situation. This probably accounts for the massive amounts of support the terrorists continually get.
So. Post-nuking of an American city. Would you seriously allow this sort of condition to continue?
Hmmmm.
@ Beck
“You should probably print that out and tape it to an easily visible location near your computer.”
You forgot:
4) Tits
I’m so ashamed I might not read this blog again until tomorrow. Never ever forget “tits”. Remember, it’s good for kids too.
Robin, exactly what convinces you that this war is a military endeavor? As far as I see, the military component is a support for the cultural war. We destroy any military capabilities of the enemy in order to destroy their pernicious society.
Hewitt is obviously rattled by the discussion. He even offers the Dan Rather defense—it’s only bloggers, pay no attention. He seems to have forgotten that the scenario under discussion is what to do AFTER a nuclear attack on the U.S. See Desperate Situations
In that context, it would certainly make sense: Mecca can’t be a terrorist hideyhole any more than anywhere else.
If so-called “Islamic” terrorists attack the US with a nuclear or similar WMD, it’s a decent bet that they will simultaneously attempt a violent takeover of Makkah, just like several previous attempts in 1979, 1987, etc. In their minds, it’s almost a logical next step.
Is anyone saying that in such an event, the US would or should not consider nuking Makkah, if (a) we were nuked, and (b) the likely perps happen to be in Makkah?
Don’t forget: by strict enforcement, only certified Muslims are ever allowed within a radius of oh, about 100 km of Makkah’s center. In a nuclear event, this fact would lead many non-Muslims to wonder what is hidden there.
All this PC indignation over Tancredo’s remark only encourages terrorists and their sympathizers to deny reality and fantasize that the US is a toothless tiger, too weak to use its full destructive power. The reality, in the event of a nuclear attack, is that if the likely perps are anywhere within 1000 km of Makkah, everyone in the vicinity won’t have time to kiss the Ka’bah goodbye.
I’ve got a solution that will work for almost everyone. If an American city is hit, we nuke Jerusalem. Stick with me on this…
We want there to be definite consequences but not start a holy war or radicalize all muslims. Jerusalem (pardon me, al-Quds) is only the third holiest city in Islam. Nuking it will get their attention because we all know how muslims would be horrified if the city is debased by violence. Still, it won’t be Mecca or Medina, so we’re throwing them a bone there. I think they’d appreciate that.
Meanwhile, the Europeans and the UN will be happy because we’re being evenhanded and not letting the all powerful Jewish lobby boss us around. I mean, how can France or Russia argue when they’ve been arming Iran with nuke technology for just such a purpose?
Now, there is the issue of the inevitable dead Palestinians, but I think if we send enough “developmental aid” to Abbas’ Swiss bank account we can buy our way out of trouble there.
Now, the Israelis won’t be too thrilled with the idea, but honestly, what are they going to do? Everyone knows that the country only has a right to exist as long as it is sufficiently grateful for the privilege. After all, part of the price of statehood is constant conventional violence with intermittant periods of radiation emanating from their the area they quaintly call their “ancient Temple”. Those crazy Jews and their fairy tales, always pretending they have any sort of history in the area.
In short, nuking Jerusalem is an idea whose time has come. Heck, it might even get us nominated for a Nobel Prize.
This whole discussion is about four years late, in my opinion. I would have nuked Mecca and Medina on 9/12/01, if I had been President. That would have been a proportional response–Mecca and Medina for New York and Washington. It would have greatly clarified matters. It would have told every Muslim in the world that if you f*ck with America, we will make you wish you had never been born. Pearl Harbor to Hiroshima in less than 24 hours.
Anyone who is aghast at my suggestion should be grateful that George W. Bush is President, and not me. His plan to democratize the Muslim world is certainly saner and more peaceful than my idea. If it works.
But if it doesn’t work, and terrorist attacks continue, then it looks to me like we missed a golden opportunity back on 9/12.
(By the way, I also like the idea of sending in some Special Forces to kidnap the Holy Meteorite. We should then dump it in the Marianas Trench on live TV.)