Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania
had always been at war with Eastasia.
And a moment before, in George
Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four,
Oceania had been an ally of Eastasia, and at war with Eurasia.1. It
would be deemed a thoughtcrime to know and think otherwise.
And it's a virtual
thoughtcrime today to say that we are at war with Islam, or even to suggest
that Islam is at war with us. Two presidents
said so. At the very most, we're only making "War on Terror." We are fearful
of Islam's "extremists,"
not of the ideology of Islam itself. So, once we identify (playing an
intelligence version of "Pin the Tail on the Donkey"), foil and stamp
out the "extremists," we'll be okay and safe and able to get on with
When we engaged Japan and
Nazi Germany in a life or death conflict, we did not call it the "War on
Kamikazes" and the "War on Blitzkrieg." The phrase "War on
Terror" makes little sense and such a "war" will make little
headway if we do not remove régimes that fund and endorse attacks on this
country. We defeated the Shinto régime that sent the Kamikazes against us and
we defeated the Nazis who perfected Blitzkrieg. And then the Kamikazes stopped
coming and so did the V2 rockets and Tiger tanks and the whole Wehrmacht. If we
hadn't destroyed our enemies' capacity to make war, and physically, militarily refuted the efficacy of their ideologies,
we'd probably still be fighting Japan and Germany. Or sued for a negotiated
peace on our enemies' terms.
Which is what we are
effectively doing with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Suing
The weapons and tactics employed
by the Japanese and Nazis were indeed intended to strike "terror" in
soldiers facing them and in civilians. But to divorce those weapons from the régimes
that employed them in war is a perilously futile and foolhardy exercise in
evasion. And that is precisely what we have done with the "War on
The "War on Terror,"
on one hand, is an accurate term for the self-blinding policy the U.S. has
engaged in for far too long. On the other hand, it is dishonest, cowardly, and
evasive. We don’t blame the ideology. Heavens, no. Islam is a
"religion," and a "religion of peace." Never mind the
historical record that it has never been a "religion of peace" in its
1,400-year existence. At least, not the "peace" as the West understands
No, we blame the
"extremists." The term "extremist" is a smear term intended
to vilify anyone who acts on fundamental principles. The American Revolutionaries
were "extremists" who fought for freedom. Islamic jihadists are "extremist"
"freedom-fighters" – that is, they fight against freedom, for Islamic
ideology is anti-freedom. Anti-liberty. Anti-mind.
Stuka dive bombers and the
launchers of V2 rockets and divisions of German soldiers are the
"extremists" of Nazism. Japanese soldiers in banzai charges and
suicidal Kamikaze pilots are the "extremists" of Shintoism.
The phrase "War on
Terror" is a tautological oxymoron. Consider the phrase "war on
poverty." What does it mean? Nothing. All it does is conjure up an absurd
picture of SWAT teams going into slums, guns blazing, to replace steel kettles
with Krups coffee makers, and paper plates with Waterford china. The "war
on drugs" is no less absurd, as is the "war on obesity" and
every other "war" the government has declared. Including the
"War on Terror."
English, especially written English, is full of bad habits which spread by
imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take the necessary
trouble. If one gets rid of these habits one can think more clearly, and to
think clearly is a necessary first step towards political regeneration: so that
the fight against bad English is not frivolous and is not the exclusive concern
of professional writers.2.
The phrase "War on
Terror," from the very beginning, spread by convenient imitation because it
helped to obfuscate the irresolution of
our political leadership to identify and challenge our enemies. Thinking clearly
about Islam is not our leadership's goal. It prefers muddied waters.
I grew tired of the phrase
"War on Terror" years ago because I saw that adopting it and the
policy behind it only guaranteed its indefinite continuation, with no end in
sight. That policy allows our current enemy, Islam in all its manifestations,
to conduct unlimited war against us, whether it's in the form of suicide
bombers or kitchen pressure cookers and other forms of "terror," or
the stealthy introduction of Sharia law in the U.S. or the Organization of Islamic
Cooperation's attempts to gut the First Amendment with Hillary Clinton's and
Barack Obama's blessings, so that clear thinking would be prohibited and
We have conducted a limited
war against, not the ideology, but against its death-loving agents and
Would we have the kinds of
controls and spying and political establishment that we have today, had we
removed those régimes at the very beginning? No. There'd be no TSA, no DHS, no government
nosing into Americans' phone calls and emails, no government "red-flagging"
what it deemed offensive speech, no government surveillance of our private
speech and behavior conducted behind the guise of "national
security," no government imposing suicidal Rules of Engagement on American
troops in a war that never occurred. Because that war would've been concluded
decades before, with Islam crawling back into its life-hating mosques, fearing
to poke its head outside ever again lest it be shot off.
There'd be no mosques in America,
either, and no Muslims streaming in to help the Brotherhood populate and conquer
America. There'd be no CAIR or ISNA or MSA or any of those Brotherhood front
organizations. Any attempt by Islamic enemies to establish Islamic "Bunds"
or "civil rights" advocacy groups in America would be discovered,
ferreted out, and dissolved.
The agents of a totalitarian
ideology – for that is what Islam is, a totalitarian ideology – working to
supplant the Constitution with Sharia law, however stealthy, would not be
tolerated. We tolerate the Amish, and Buddhists, and even the Baptists because those
people are not proposing to impose their will on everyone else. It is only Islam
No 9/11. No 7/7. No Madrid or
Bali bombings. No Boston Marathon bombings. None of it. The costly and
mind-deadening siege culture we have been living in for the past fifteen or so
years would never have congealed around us and asphyxiated us. We wouldn't have
even had to endure the plane hijackings and massacres and terrorism of the
1960's and 1970's, for Islam would have been trounced, defeated, and its nose
rubbed in the dirt a decade or so before.
We'd have an FBI that would
fight the enemy with both eyes wide open.
Muslims coming to America would
be ex-Muslims wanting to escape the fetid, murderous hellholes of Islam. Mexicans
wanting to come to America would want to undergo the usual naturalization process
and leave their crippled, failed country behind, as well.
Neither of the Islam-respecting
Bushes would have been elected. The Clintons would have remained in Arkansas to
lord it over people whose cars are on cinder blocks. And glib-talking Barack Obama
would probably have weaseled his way into Chicago politics instead of being
tapped by the Marxists in the Democratic Party to become their point man for
the socialization of America.
There'd be no Obamacare, or
TARPs, or "Stimuli," nor Obama and Michelle "Minnie the
Moocher" giving the country and Americans their middle fingers as they do
a poor impersonation of the Roosevelts and fly off on their million dollar
vacations. We would never have heard of them, except when the next Chicago corruption
scandal erupted on the front pages.
"mismanaging" the "War on Terror," either, as some of his
critics are alleging. His policies are consciously designed to cause us to lose
it. He is a nihilist and I cut him no slack. His foreign policies complement
his domestic policies, which are designed to destroy the country under the
rubric of "transformation." Obama may enable Islamic régimes to come
to power in the Mideast and North Africa because he has an envious affinity for
those régimes. He is enabling the Marxists and Democrats to "reform"
the country so that it is multiculturally humbled and unexceptional.
I know that others in the
past have made the very same points I make here, but that doesn’t ameliorate my
disgust with the phrase "War on Terror" because that phrase means
Islam must be dealt a mortal
blow. The only way to defeat Islam is to cut off its heads as well as its
But someone might object: But…but…that
would mean taking out the Saudis, and Iran, and the UAE, and Qatar, and
Pakistan. Yes, it would. These were actions the U.S. ought to have taken ages
ago, beginning with that looting, medieval dynasty of the Saudis. It might even
mean using tactical nuclear weapons. But the longer we do not remove régimes and
states that sponsor terrorism, the longer the "War on Terror" will go
on. As a country, we cannot afford a perpetual and indefinitely extended
stalemate. No country has ever survived that kind of "war."
The late John David Lewis, in
his seminal work on the means and ends of warfare, wrote:
who wage war to enslave a continent – or to impose their dictatorship over a
neighboring state – are seeking and end that is deeply immoral and must not be
judged morally equal to those defending against such attacks.3.
And it is not a stalemate we
are facing. It is an incremental retreat lead by the internal enemies of this country
in the face of the Left's totalitarian agenda allied with the Islamic blueprint
for conquest. These allies are copasetic in their means and ends.
most urgent task is to identify this central point [an enemy's ideological and
moral strength] for his enemy's overall war effort and to direct his forces
against that center – be it economic, social, or military – with a view to
collapsing the opponent's commitment to continue the war. To break the
"will to fight" is to reverse not only the political decision to
continue the war by inducing a decision to surrender, but also the commitment
of the populations to continue (or to restart) the war.4.
This is precisely the policy
that has been adopted by "Islamists" against the U.S. and the West. They
know that the U.S. and the West have no "will to fight," because the U.S.
and the West have sabotaged their own ideological and moral strength with
pragmatism, subjectivism and multiculturalism. Philosophically, politically, to
use an analogy from the Battle of Gettysburg, we have right and left flanks, but
no center in the Union position. General Lee attacked the center, thinking it
was weak and would collapse. He was wrong. He paid the price.
Our flanks are superfluous,
because they exist to defend the center composed of pragmatic, unprincipled
mush. Our enemies are pouring through that center and striking at our flanks. And
that is why we are paying the price and collapsing.
is no single strategic pattern, no universal "theory of war," and no
moral "rules" divorced from context or purpose to emerge from this
book. The major point is to take moral
ideas seriously.5. (Italics
The "War on Terror"
will not end until we abandon that anti-concept and adopt the morally correct
idea that we are engaged in a War Against Islam.
Eighty-Four: Text, Sources, Criticism, by George Orwell. (1949) Edited by
Irving Howe. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1963. p. 121.
2. "Politics and the English Language," in All Art is Propaganda: Critical Essays,
by George Orwell. Compiled by George Packer. New York: Mariner Books/Houghton
Mifflin Harcourt, 2008. pp. 270-271.
3. Nothing Less
Than Victory: Decisive Wars and the Lessons of History, by John David Lewis.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010. p. 3.
4. Ibid, p. 6.
5. Ibid, p. 10.