A poll shown on CBC Question Period with Don Newman showed that 54% of Muslims wish that the Canadian government would recognize sharia law.
I hope the hell not!!!
If they can get their own laws into this land, then Canada ceases to exist.
Actually, Nazi Germany had plenty of will. They still lost.
The problem isn't will, it's war. Democracies aren't good at fighting limited wars, unless they're over quickly and we win. What we are good at is fighting total wars given enough time - the problem is, sometimes the cure is as bad as the disease. Witness the immolation of Europe during WW1.
The Boer war became hugely unpopular with the British public once they realised it wasn't going to be over quickly (though I believe it was pretty popular in the Dominions) and that was over a hundred years ago.
I can't believe we can win a war against 'Islamic totalitarianism' because it's too undefined. We need specific achievable goals to work for - diplomatic and military.
Germany lost the will to fight when she surrendered. She had so much "will" in fact, that it took the conquest and destruction of virtually all of Germany for her to reach that stage; the stage of moral collapse.
Destroying the will of the enemy can take many forms, from total destruction to "aid". Don't get too concrete with this ... and keep in mind that John Keegan is likely THE most respected military historian EVER (in my humble opinion). I've been devouring military and geopolitical history since 1973, and his thesis is smack on.
Whether protracted low-level war or total war, the end is always determined by the moral collapse of one side. Even the Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet will to go on; and it was done by bankrupting the Soviets via the Arms Race.
I can't believe we can win a war against 'Islamic totalitarianism' because it's too undefined. We need specific achievable goals to work for - diplomatic and military.
The War against Islamic Totalitarianism is as territorial as any other war. Don't give an inch; not in London, not it Iraq, not in Afghanistan; the Philippines; Thailand; Chechnya; etc. etc. The means of doing so is irrelevant if you don't have the will. Once you have the will, then you will find the way. But you are right, at this point the West doesn’t even have the will to define the war. How pathetic.
I think it's going to take one or several utter bloodbaths-nuclear strikes, chemical or bio weapons strikes-in which the death toll is exponentially higher than 9/11, before what used to confidently be called the Free World wakes up.
Believe me, I take no satisfaction of any kind in saying this. In fact, I feel almost despair. I see the West's will to win has been and is being constantly drained by the Fifth Column of the Western neo-left, aided and abetted by most of the West's MSM.
The West of old, the West that won World War Two, would have already won this business. Besides Saddam and the Taliban, the Syrian and Iranian regimes would have already been destroyed.
Which brings me to what I see the crux of this.
We cannot win the War on Global Islamofascism without destroying the Iranian dictatorship. Take out the Mullah dictatorship and everything else is a matter of smaller subsequent tasks.
Paul
I think it is a long fight to tame Islamic totalitarianism, and it will have it's ups and downs including flagging civilian morale at times - I mentioned the Boer war because that was a problem for Britain when it was the most powerful country on the planet.
John Keegan is one of a group of superb military historians who write for the general public - I also like Michael Howard, Max Hastings and Carlo D'Este. And Williamson Murray, Gerhard Weinberg, John Prados and Allan Millett especially for WW2. There's James Mcpherson and Stephen Sears for the civil war, Hew Strachan for WWI, David Howarth for the Napoleonic wars - these are just the msot reaable ones I've found - and Victor Davis Hanson is also an excellent readable historian.
Dave, what do you mean about 'wake up'? As for destroying the Iranian dictatorship? It's beyond our means militarily to do this in any way but the crudest fashion. We'd just turn the Iranian people against us. For Iran, patience can be a virtue.
Dave: I'd add Saudi Arabia to the list because it is Saudi money that is fueling extremism all over the world. Saudi money pays for madrassas and extremist Imams. Most international terrorist acts can be traced back to Saudi influence. Question is: How does one deal with the Saudis when the West depends so much on them?
Tom: Keegan does much much more than write for public consumption. Many of his books, papers, and texts are not for public consumption as they are written at a level far beyond most readers (public consumption material must be at about great 8 comprehension). Military historians are not that common (as compared to historians who write about war as part of the general history of their specialty) ie: (Hanson - Greece). Keegan is unique in that his specialty is War in a Wholistic sense. That's why military colleges use him so much, his life's work goes beyond one era or region and looks at War in total, not to mention constant critique of those who write about it. His work is just as important in that it examines how War is recorded and studies by others.
You said: It's beyond our means militarily to do this in any way but the crudest fashion.
Exactly the point Tom ... by dodging this bullet now, we are storing up for an enormous and "crude" conflict (total war). The choice is between a protracted on-off again struggle, or the big one. We've set aside covert ops to destroy governments, so we are really stuck with limited choices.
I'm afraid that the average North American isn't up to protracted conflict ... and I doubt that Europeans are up to any conflict. Only England and Poland were up for it in WW2 ... the rest more or less rolled over. Now, after decades of living under the US umbrella coupled with a leftist utopian bent that makes North Americans seem fascist, I frankly can't imagine Europhiles doing much more than grumbling.
If you follow Socialist; Marxist; Leftist literture, you'll find virtually no difference between it and what the Jihadists are saying; minus the religion. They are all ideologies that hate America, capitalism, free markets, and decentralized government. There is an alliance of sorts, as most of the non-relgious talking point of Jihadists are Marxist or Socialist-utopian.
This too weakens the will of the West. I'm not sure what people thought, that because the Iron Curtain fell, that all the academics and journalists and politicians and unionists who were ultra-left would just vanish. They are still with us; and now they serve as a weakening agent when it comes to the War on Islamic Totalitarianism.
I've read all of Keegan's books except his last one - he is first rate. But several of the other authors I mentioned are academics whose specialty is military history, Strachan, Murray, Millett, Sears and Howard are all such. And I'm not suggesting they have any significantly different interpretation of war than Keegan does, although I suspect some would emphasize different things about the nature of war and presumably have different ideas about it's future.
Strachan edits one of the major academic journals on military history and its larger impact 'War and History'. He is a younger contemporary of Keegan's. Howard is an older contemporary. If you haven't read them I suggest you try them out. Howard has a several books of essays - War in European History being most relevant. Strachan's first volume on WW! - To Arms - is a magnificent work.
How was Poland up for WW2 but France wasn't? They both fought the Nazis and lost? What about the Soviet Union?
What do you want Europeans to do?
The French refused to engage their airforce in any numbers; even while RAF Fighter command was being beaten over France. The French collapsed without hardly a fight. Their armed forces were vastly superior to that of Poland, yet Poland cost the Germans dearly in lives and time and determination.
The Soviets ... had will by the buckets. I do not count them as Europe proper and did not consider them in what I said.
The French airforce was in the process of converting to better planes when the Germans attacked. The French armour was at least as good as the German, but they had faulty doctrine, not concentrating but spreading it too thin.
The French had 90000 kia, I don't think it was will - except near the end, it was bad upper management, too many old generals.
International Zionist conspiracies
Aw, come on. I'm calling you on this one--heard it once too often.
So, Paul, name one leftist--one--who has ever mouthed off about "international Zionist conspiracies." It's high time this robust strawman of the Right was put to the torch.
The will to fight isn't just a military question. Americans, or many of them, want to fight this without any inconveniences, let alone sacrifices. After 9/11, Mr. Bush told America to go shopping. Now, the public seems more concerned with the death of Anna Nicole Smith than the fact that they are buying oil from wahabist Saudi Arabia, and from a clown like Hugo Chavez. Has there ever been a war where one side continues to buy a vital commodity from the other side? No wonder people can't take this seriously.
And also:
"The French collapsed without hardly a fight. Their armed forces were vastly superior to that of Poland, yet Poland cost the Germans dearly in lives and time and determination."
The germans had about 30,000 casualties in Poland. There were about 70,000 german casualties in France spring 1940. Don't confuse unfunny jokes about the french with real history.
Dr. Dawg: First I've got to say that I'm glad you're back. I hope all is going as well as could be expected... the fact that you are here ready to do battle is indeed a good sign.
As to your question: Daily Kos ... cram packed full of Zionist conspiracy in some of its discussions. Surely you've visited the site on occasion. World Socialist Web, Socialist Worker Online to mention two others. But, Zionist conspiracy theory is as much, or more, a product of the far right ... so why the offense?
Now Doctor - what do make of the thesis of my erudite essay?
Anon: Agreed!
I think that the French actually lost about 120,000. It was the typical slaughter suffered by a retreating army, not one that was standing and fighting. The Polish attempted to fight with their out-dated airforce, the French did not. While British pilots died, the French pilots sat in mess. German casualties in France were suffered much at the hands of the British, who although poorly led, fought like demons. The spotty and oft reprihensible behavior of the French during German occupation and during liberation speaks for itself. Fully one third of soldiers defending Berlin in the last days were French Fascists ... ironically, they had the will and they all died.
The will to fight is very often not a matter of military collapse, but it causes collapse. Destroying the other sides military is just one way of destroying will; building schools and aiding the poor can be just as effective.
I will be gone for several days so I've turned on comment moderation. Please do return and "grind my gears" when I'm back. I'll be checking comments tonight and perhaps in the morning, otherwise, I'll be unavailable until at least Saturday PM.
I've got to weigh in quickly on the historical debate going on here. Although I don't wish to detract from the broader themes of Paul's post, I can't pass up historical debate.
On the issue of the French and Poles, I am strongly on Paul's side of the issue. The events that really sum up the nation will of France and Poland for me is the way in which their capitals fell.
The Poles, much further from Allied assistance and much weaker than France, fought for every inch of their country. By the time the panzer reached their capital, the battle was already lost, but the Poles continued to fight. Every man and woman capable of hoisting a shovel set out to the outskirts of Warsaw and began digging trenches and tank traps, determined to stop the Germans. Only after a long lasting and intense bombardment from the Germans who chose to beseige instead of assault the city, did the brave Poles surrender. Later in the war, the Poles rose to fight again, trying to free their capital as the Russians neared. Famously, Stalin stopped his troops, and the Poles were left fighting solo, again. But they did not give in. Thousands died and the remainer surrendered only after their beans and bullets had run out.
On the French side, there was no "Battle of Paris". History recalls the occupants of Paris stuburnly shopping and going to work the day the Germans arrived. Smalls parts of their army fought on elsewhere, but most Frenchmen had no intention of resisting. The Germans rolled into a Paris that felt eerily like a peacetime city. The Frenchmen had no will to fight.
Will is not enough. Will is simply a reason to survive combined with a decision to survive. When either are lost, so is the fight, but there is another factor. Beyond will, you need strategy. Russia had a great strategy against Germany.
North Vietnam had a great strategy against the USA. That human shield strategy and use of non-combatants lead to a high 'civilian' body count that propelled propeganda by the western media. That usurped the reason to fight and thus the will.
Hezbollah fought well in the media though not well on the ground last year. They know that showing kids dying removes support from the West.
Even in local fights like against crime or the drug trade or the spread of sharia law, the reason and decision must be there with a strategy. With people in the West not willing to take responsibility in their own lives, how can the West truely win a war against patient dedicated Islamists who are willing to take matters into their own hands. The media even shows grandmother suicide bombers. That is dedication that is lost on most in the West.
John M Reynolds
Commenting by HaloScan
