Why did Bosnia collapse into the worst slaughter in Europe since World War Two? In the thirty years before the meltdown, Bosnian Serbs had declined from 43 percent to 31 percent of the population, while Bosnian Muslims had increased from 26 percent to 44 percent. In a democratic age, you canâ€™t buck demographyâ€”except through civil war. The Serbs figured that outâ€”as other Continentals will in the years ahead: if you canâ€™t outbreed the enemy, cull â€™em. The problem that Europe faces is that Bosniaâ€™s demographic profile is now the model for the entire continent.
Kleiman then comments:
[L]et’s call it by its real name: Steyn is justifying genocide, both retrospectively in Bosnia and prospectively in the rest of Europe. [...]
Is there any reason Mark Steyn should not now be treated as a pariah, and confer pariah status on whoever deals with him? Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas. Or have we fallen so far that a call for genocide is all in a day’s work?
Basically, yes. There is a significant, but vocal, minority of people in this country who think any and all measures should be considered when fighting terrorists, no matter how destructive or evil.
Here’s a fun little gallery of quotes that, I think, ably illustrates the bloodthirsty moral relativism of today’s right-wing radicalism:
Civilized societies have found it harder, though, to beat the barbarians without killing all, or nearly all, of them. Were it really to become all-out war of the sort that Osama and his ilk want, the likely result would be genocide â€” unavoidable, and provoked, perhaps, but genocide nonetheless, akin to what Rome did to Carthage, or to what Americans did to American Indians. Thatâ€™s what happens when two societies canâ€™t live together, and the weaker one wonâ€™t stop fighting â€” especially when the weaker one targets the civilians and children of the stronger. This is why I think itâ€™s important to pursue a vigorous military strategy now. Because if we donâ€™t, the military strategy weâ€™ll have to follow in five or ten years will be light-years beyond â€œvigorous.â€?
[W]e have a couple of choices, and everybody has been talking about being an honest broker, but thereâ€™s another choice, and that is to be a participant on one side, with the Shias and Kurds against the Sunnis. The Shias, while they are a bigger number of people, they donâ€™t have the experience that the Sunnis have, but if you combine the Shia numbers with our technology and our support, technical support, we could in fact get a second bestâ€”not what we wanted, which was a government that was genuinely democratic, but perhaps a friendly, semi-theocratic Shia government that we had put in power by helping them win a civil war. Thatâ€™s not a wonderful choice, but itâ€™s a lot better than turning tail and leaving.
History never offers exact parallels, but it does have useful lessons. In assessing manning needs for Iraq, one would do well to look to prior conflicts of similar natureâ€¦ one might look especially to the Boer War, in which a fractious, semi-fanatical culture was slowly ground into submission by an occupying force â€” several years after the seeming success of the initial invasion. If it sounds familiar, it should: and so the means of victory there offer an instructive thought experiment for Iraq today.
Make no mistake: those means were cruel. I have stated previously that I endorse cruel things in war â€” to eschew them is folly. The British achieved victory over the Boers by taking their women and children away to concentration camps, by laying waste to the countryside, and by dotting the veld with small garrisons in blockhouses at regular intervals. The men who remained were hindered in their movements by the wire stretching from blockhouse to blockhouse (a phenomenon that the Morice Line experience has shown would be massively more effective now); they could either surrender or die. Absent women and children, the rules of engagement were lax. From implementation to victory took under 18 months. To accomplish this required over one-quarter million soldiers.
Still, as the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate engage in interminable debate about resolutions whose effects can only be to “damage morale and undermine the military” while emboldening our enemies, it is time to reflect on what constitutes inappropriate behavior in time of war [...]
If there’s one thing that really should be a hanging offense, it is behavior that results in our being even less equipped to deal with such threats than we were before this phase of the War for the Free World began on September 11, 2001.
Iâ€™ll make a deal with the Left: You wanna impeach President Bush? Go ahead. Knock yourself out. In fact, letâ€™s just go to the polls and turn the whole government over to the Democrats. You wanna run the whole show? Fine. Elect Howard Dean President. End all surveillance against possible enemy combatants, unless you can get a warrant based on probable cause. Withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan immediately. Permanently kill the PATRIOT Act. Do whatever you want to do. Iâ€™m perfectly willing, at this point, to do it your way.
I mean, really, whatâ€™s the worst that can happen? An American city goes up in nuclear fire? Well, it?ll probably be New York, Chicago, or LA. You know, a major city. I donâ€™t live there, nor do most Americans. So weâ€™ll be fine.
But hereâ€™s the other half of the deal: If that happens, we get to march on Washington, drag you naked and screaming from your offices, and hang you from the ornate lampposts that line The Mall. Then, free from roadblocks thrown up by infantile political fools, maybe weâ€™ll get serious about defending the United States, her people, her freedoms, and her values, in an increasingly hostile world.
IF a prize were awarded for the most-improved government publication of the decade, we could choose the winner now: “Army Field Manual 3-24, Counterinsurgency” (MCWP 3-33.5 for the Marine Corps). Rising above abysmal earlier drafts, the Army and Marines have come through with doctrine that will truly help our troops. [...]
In the spirit of constructive criticism, here are a few of the gaps remaining:
While the sometimes-you-just-have-to-fight realists are in the ascendant at last, the military’s academic side still has too much influence. You see it plainly in the illustrative vignettes chosen to accompany the text: They emphasize soft power (doesn’t work – sorry) over the need to kill implacable murderers to provide security for the innocent.
The bias in the case-study selection still favors the hand-holding efforts that helped create the current mess in Iraq (military academics, like all academics, won’t give up on their theses just because mere facts contradict them). The drafters cite the anomalous example of Malaya (while downplaying that campaign’s violence), but ignore the same-decade example of the Mau-Mau revolt, in which the British won a complete victory – thanks to concentration camps, hanging courts and aggressive military operations.
The pattern that emerges here is extremely creepy, and it has only gotten more noticeable since the Democrats took back Congress in November. The above quotes bring to mind a great many things, but “conservativism” or, even more laughably, “libertarianism” aren’t among them. The 9/11 terror attacks have created a downright frightening brand of right-wing authoritarianism that will unfortunately be with us long after George W. Bush has left office.
UPDATE: Some of you have remarked that there is nothing funny about this post, and that it is actually quite depressing. As I said last week, reading right-wing blogs has been getting me pretty down lately. If I spend more than five minutes at Glenn Reynolds’ website, I come out feeling like Happy Time Harry:
Though come to think of it, it’d be pretty sweet if I could get a free supply of pills from reading Powerline… hmmmm…