End the Cycle of Violence, Kill the Violent

The futility of violence in modern conflicts with terrorism does not spring from the impotence of force that can't help but create a self-sustaining cycle of violence, as liberal pundits and "head in the clouds" philosophers like to contend -- it comes about because of an insufficiency of force.

What is impotent is 'compromised force', force with its hands tied behind its back by rules of engagement, by international diplomacy, by human rights protesters and liberal politicians who don't care a whit for the victims of terrorism but whose heart bleeds at weekly press conferences for the terrorists themselves.

Time and time again America and Israel have had their hands tied behind their backs by those same forces while the terrorists have been given free range to kill, knowing that no matter what they do, they will still be entitled to a warm cell, a lawyer and three meals a day and that if one hair on their poor little heads is harmed, one fingernail is roughly clipped or if one of those infidel women whose job it is to deal with them so much as raises their voice to them, Amnesty International, the ACLU and every ambulance chasing lawyer, microphone chasing activist, postmodern artist, newspaper columnist and activist reverend will be screaming bloody murder from here to the North Pole.

To hell with them all. Force works. Force is what has settled war after war. Righteous force in a righteous cause is the only true guarantee of freedom and the only real defense against an enemy. And our enemies know that which is why they have done the most to undermine it, which is why the regimes that shelter them continue to play a double game, which is why the object of the enemy and their domestic allies has been to turn pacifism into righteousness and to demonize those who would resist them.

It is only when our hands are tied, when we are unable to not simply strike at the terrorists but to strike them down, that there is a cycle of violence. It is only when we fight half-heartedly and fight with half-measures that a cycle of violence exists, because the terrorists each time manage to escape to fight another day.

When cruise missiles are fired at empty tents in Afghanistan and bombs are dropped on empty buildings in Gaza, then there is a cycle of violence. When terrorists are put on trial and their lawyers smirk and claim that terrorism is justified in the very halls of justice of the nation which their clients have made war on, then there is a cycle of violence. When soldiers are then put on trial for killing terrorists while terrorists are freed to go back to killing soldiers, then there is a cycle of violence.

When we hold back the might of our arms, when we restrain the fury of our people, when we treat the terrorists as human beings, when we seek for a diplomatic solution while doing just the bare minimum necessary to keep them in check -- then and only then is there a cycle of violence.

To end the cycle of violence, kill the perpetrators of the violence. Restrain not the hands of soldiers from the work of protecting the nation and the world. Fight them by any means and on any terms. Ignore the humanitarians, perish the pundits, forget the whining politicians. The only time the public cares about what they say is when the war is being lost and the cycle of violence exists, because they were listened to in the first place.

The liberals tie the hands of the military in order to lose wars in the first place. They preach, scream, screech, rant, inveigh, demand and protest in order to prevent the war from succeeding. They do it enough to force a compromise in the use of force. They invent atrocities and make a great screeching noise whenever one really does occur. All of it is done for one reason, to tie down those who destroy the enemy so that the war is stalemated, so that a cycle of violence exists, so that the public begins to feel that further fighting is futile and are finally ready to listen to their poisonous treachery which by now has come to seem like sage advice.

Imagine a group people going on a boating trip. John favors the trip and prepares for it while Mark is opposed and constantly speaks out against it, warning that it will be a disaster. John brings along a great deal of food while Mark harries him insisting that all that food is unnecessary. John compromises and leaves a great deal of the food behind. A few days pass and the food has all but run out. Mark blames John for getting them into this mess, even though he was the one who insisted on reducing the food. Yet John is equally at fault for listening to him. Just as we are at fault for ever listening to the liberals in the first place, for giving their chatter about rights and the moral high ground any credence in the first place.

The only way to end the cycle of violence is with superior violence, while we repeatedly find ourselves locked into the cycle because the use of violence itself has been locked down just enough to prevent the destruction of the terrorists in the first place.

Given a free hand, the retaking and securing of Gaza would be a matter of weeks for the IDF. The destruction of the insurgency in Iraq, which was backed and controlled out of Iran and Syria, could have been ended in a month. Instead of unleashed force, what we got was the bicycle of violence, in which you pedal slower and slower, while the very people telling you to pedal slower keep pointing out that you aren't reaching your destination and declaring that this is proof that they were right and the destination cannot be reached in the first place.

There is no cycle of violence but the one we create through inaction. A cycle of violence is not inevitable, it is the product of apathy and a failure to act against the terrorists.