The Los Angeles Times
May 12, 2004
It's a Fight for Survival -- Pull Out All Stops
By Bruce Herschensohn
It may seem to be a radical idea, but why not use every means possible —
without politically correct detours — to win the war against terrorism?
Our victory in World War II was not achieved by trying to win the hearts and
minds of Germans and Japanese. We did not dominate the newsreels with
pictures of those things a few American troops did to captured enemies. We
did not call for an end to domestic profiling. We did not demonstrate
against our military involvement. There was not the outrageous political
complaint that "I support the troops but oppose the war."
Instead of all that, we bombed our enemies to submission with all the power
and weaponry we had available. After our costly invasion of Europe, with
immense U.S. casualties, the atomic bomb was ready — and to prevent another
invasion we used it on Japan. Today, we justifiably call those Americans of
the 1940s "the Greatest Generation." During those years of war there was one
issue: winning the war by demanding absolute and unconditional surrender of
our enemies. Other issues were put aside as luxuries that would be reserved
for a later time; there was not a simultaneous cry for saving the
environment and a demand for creating more jobs and an insistence on
government-provided healthcare and lower costs for prescription drugs.
But in the 1960s came the Vietnam War, along with its battles televised to
American living rooms. Since that war, too many Americans have insisted only
on fast wars with few casualties. They all had to be something like the
invasion of Grenada or the liberation of Kuwait.
But if we want to win the war against terrorism we must accept a lengthy war
with many casualties, because the consequences of defeat will mean our
future generations will be left to lifetimes of fear. If we lose this war,
we will be on the road back to the Middle Ages.
The devil with winning the hearts and minds of enemies who believe in
primitive and uncivilized governments while being taught to hate the United
States. The devil with allowing privileged sanctuaries for the enemy as we
did during much of the Vietnam War. Now privileged sanctuaries provide
safety not for the North Vietnamese army in Laos and Cambodia but for
terrorists and their headquarters and safe houses and training centers in
Syria and Lebanon and Iran and Yemen and the West Bank and Gaza. And the
devil with congressional commissions that do little more than bring aid and
comfort to our enemies.
After the defeat in Southeast Asia, the peace achieved by the enemy cost
more lives than the war. This seems lost in history and intentionally lost
in the memory of many Americans who rallied against the war in Vietnam. More
than a million "boat people" escaped the horrors of re-education camps in
Vietnam, but it's estimated that half of them drowned in the South China
Sea. More than 2 million people lost their lives in the genocide of
Cambodia's peace. If we should lose this war on terror, Americans could
march to re-education camps, others will become boat people and the U.S.
will become a Western mirror of Cambodia's genocide.
In fairness, there is an alternative to our involvement in the war against
terrorism, and that is to leave our fate to the international community
under the United Nations. Yes, the U.N. can bring about peace: the peace of
the palace for the few in authority, the peace of subjugation for the many
and the peace of mass graves for the courageous.
The only subject worthy of our national attention and the only pursuit that
should be acceptable is total victory — no matter if others are offended or
even destroyed. I know this kind of thinking is not considered acceptable in
2004. But we better accept it — and quickly. And if we make it our only
cause and unconditional victory is achieved, our leadership and our troops
and our home-front supporters of their mission will be known as another
Are you sure this was from the LA Times? Wow.
Personally, for me zebra's don't change their stripes, the L.A. Times is still a mouth piece for the liberal Democratic left, and they're still in left field. To me this is just a ploy to keep the news "in balance." Every once in a long long while they will print something pro-gun.
Oops stupid me, its by Bruce Herschensohn, he's a know conservative, this is printed to balance out the liberal views of the editor. My opinion of the Times still stands, they're a mouth piece for the liberal left. Period.
I agree. Just heard they were, many moons ago, a conservative paper.