Drones and special forces…
Readers of this blog know that I’ve long supported drones and special forces as effective ways to battle terrorism. Now these tactics are coming into question in the liberal media. The criticism contains the usual complaint that innocents can be killed. It also complains about due process, especially for those terrorists who are also U.S. citizens. The Obama administration has recognized the effectiveness of these policies. Ironically, both sides of the political aisle are criticizing. Maybe not ironic, but absurd—it’s as if all those NRA supporters in Congress have suddenly become vocal sycophants of the ACLU.
Let’s consider first the innocent civilian casualties. Terrorists have long used women and children as shields. They still are. They hide behind them, figuring the West is too soft to attack innocents, even though that’s these dogs’ modus operandi—that’s why we call it terrorism! Enter a busy marketplace in Israel and blow it up. Take out the twin towers of the WTC. Blow up a train in Spain or a bus in London. The truth is, a drone attack or an attack by special forces puts fewer innocents in danger than massive air strikes protecting thousands of troops on the ground. This is without counting that our casualties are also minimized. This part of the argument is bunk.
Do I feel compassion for the loss of innocents? Of course! I hate war and human suffering. But I have my priorities straight. I’d rather protect our own people first. Many of our victims are just as nameless and faceless as those Arab innocents, but at least our people are not part of a Neanderthal culture that supports a jihad against innocents. I don’t care if you’re a Muslim who abhors this violence, if you don’t fight to purify your culture of these radical elements, you’re part of the problem. Don’t throw up your hands and say you can do nothing. Because, if you do nothing, you have no right to complain about what we do in our counterterrorism efforts. Islam has skipped over the loving God part of the Christian religion and returned to the vengeful God part of the Old Testament. Salaam alaikum has become a curse for all Westerners.
Yes, I know. A missile screaming in from a drone cruising at high altitude must be terrifying. As terrifying as two jets screaming into the sides of the WTC towers? Or feeling your own body ripped apart on a London bus along with your fellow passengers? How about giving terrorists the taste of their own medicine? They, at least, are out there voluntarily, prepared to die for their stupid jihad. All the innocents in the examples I’ve mentioned, plus thousands of others, have not volunteered to do battle—the fight is not with them. But the terrorists strike at them because these are victims who cannot fight back. Terrorists don’t have the cajones to fight like real men—instead, they attack innocents, people who have not dedicated their lives to fighting, people who only want to live in peace. Salaam alaikum.
What about the due process angle? Jimmy Lee Dykes, the kidnapper who held that five-year-old captive for so many days, was not given due process. Authorities already knew he had (1) killed the bus driver and (2) threatened to kill little Ethan. His “due process” was that the FBI even allowed him to shoot first, or so they say. I don’t care whether they did. Sure, he should have been in a mental institution (so should the gunman at Sandy Hook and so many other wackos—bin Laden and al-Awlaki belonged in straitjackets too), but authorities must choose between due process and protecting everyone else. The FBI made the right choice. When it was clear that Mr. Dykes was willing to do something horrible, they moved in—no due process. I didn’t hear any ACLU lawyers get on their soap boxes in this case—they would be laughed out of town.
The case of Anwar al-Awlaki is no different. This terrorist had already established his terrorist credentials. In order to protect innocents, he was taken out by a missile in Yemen. Another U.S. citizen was taken out in the same strike. Jimmy Lee Dykes and these two Americans killed in Yemen forfeited their rights as citizens by attacking other American citizens. I know the ACLU won’t agree with that, but in all too many cases the ACLU is just wrong. Like most lawyers, they have this bug up their butts that both sides of an issue deserve their legal support and due process incantations. I’m a progressive liberal saying this—but I’m also a pragmatist. When the choices are clear, namely, kill the bastard or let them kill others, there is absolutely no question what is the correct action. Sorry, ACLU—civil liberties don’t apply in this case.
The case of bin Laden is similar. Although not a U.S. citizen, people have spoken out about due process for him too. What a dump-truck-load of manure! Osama, the Egyptian, and others of their ilk are directly responsible for ordering the attack on the WTC towers that killed almost 3000 innocents, people from a wide variety of religious and cultural backgrounds, including Muslims. Their actions are specifically proscribed by the Koran. The whole concept of jihad is a load of crock. Bin Laden didn’t deserve due process. In fact, bin Laden deserved worse than he received, because he was a rabid dog that had to be put down.
Anwar al-Awlaki and Osama bin Laden are examples of the effectiveness of the combined use of drones and special forces. There was a drone flying over Jimmy Lee Dykes too. By whining about due process and wringing your hands about our handling of terrorists, you will (1) tie our authorities’ hands for achieving any effective counterterrorism program, and (2) encourage the terrorists, who already think we’re weak and stupid. I want our counterterrorism policies to be strong and smart. I lost too many friends and relatives in 9/11. It’s time for us to have our own jihad against the terrorists. Obama and friends are doing just that. ‘Nough said.
And so it goes….
[If you enjoyed this post, support this blog: buy, read, and review my new ebook The Golden Years of Virginia Morgan.]
