time for the Lew Rockwell website and itís traitorous
commentators to get with the program.
me explain to you the most fundamental principle of American foreign
policy: Any country where the people have unpronounceable names
can be bombed by the US with impunity. For you Rockwell readers
who are a little slow on the uptake, "impunity" means
they arenít allowed to bomb us back. "We called no tag-backs."
It hardly qualifies as impunity when they blow up our biggest buildings,
now does it? They arenít playing by the rules.
only one appropriate response to the destruction of the World Trade
Centers: massive bombing of someone, anyone. Letís not quibble about
whom; itís more important that the bombing commence, and the sooner
the better. Ann
Coulter represents the feelings of the American people when
is no time to be precious about locating the exact individuals directly
involved in this particular terrorist attack. Ö We weren't punctilious
about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We
carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And
this is war."
Coulter has concisely summed up the situation: our bombing needs
to be massive, indiscriminate and unrelenting. Forget limp-wristed
namby-pamby concepts like "targeted strikes"; no, we want
"carpet bombing." Only one motto can adequately describe
our policy towards the Arab world: "Kill
them all, and let Allah sort out his own." If murdering
innocent civilians in order to dramatize internal rage was a good
enough policy for the hijackers of the four airliners, then itís
good enough for the USA.
country cannot afford to tolerate nay-sayers
who doubt the effectiveness of indiscriminate bombing inflicted
on countries located on the other side of the world. Didnít it work
in Vietnam and Iraq? But we neednít go back that far in history.
Look how well Russia
is handling a Muslim insurgency (led by ex-Mujihadeen) in Chechnya.
True, they have the advantage of fighting these rebels in their
own country, so itís no wonder theyíre
succeeding. But the fact that Afghanistan is a mountainous,
land-locked country 10,000 miles from the US and virtually surrounded
by fellow Muslim nations should not deter us from our resolve to
exercise our righteous indignation.
Bush, however, has pointed out a potential drawback to this
policy, "When I take action I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile
at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It's going to be
decisive." As President Bush implies, Afghanistan doesnít even have
any targets worth demolishing. After twenty years of unremitting
warfare and devastation, today thereís hardly one stone left standing
upon another in the entire country. Afghanis are preoccupied with
concerns such as locating their next meal. Thatís why theyíre living
in "$10 tents."
Ms. Coulterís article suggests a more appropriate target for carpet-bombing:
Germany. As she says, "We did it before, why not do it again?"
As far as "harboring terrorists," the credentials of the
Germans are much better than the Taleban.
Where did this terrorist cell originate before it came to the US
to do its evil work? Hamburg!
If weíre going to start carpet-bombing countries that harbor terrorists,
here is our obvious first target. To make things easier on us, most
of the Germans even have funny names like "Gunter" and
"Helmut," practically as strange as "Osama."
And while weíre sending in the heavy bombers, we can wipe out Dresden
again, just for old times sakes.
weíve "bombed back to the stone age" those harborers of
terrorism in Germany, let us not forget the stirring words of Sen.
Lieberman: "In this struggle, vengeance is not victory.
Retaliation for yesterday's atrocities is only the end of the beginning
of what should be our response, not the beginning of the end of
that response." Vengeance upon Germany should be only a start,
but where should we strike next? The answer is obvious: Egypt and
of the 19 terrorists were Afghanis; they werenít even Iraqis, Iranians
or Palestinians. But the FBI is indicating that most, if not all,
are connected to either Egypt
Arabia. Will we withhold from these countries the "hammer
of Thor" merely because they are our most reliable allies
in the Middle East? No! Let us never again make the mistake of distinguishing
between terrorists and those who harbor them. These countries must
be wiped off the map. Let the bombing of Cairo commence. And while
weíre at it, we can buy a few one-way tickets to Canada for any
pacifists who complain about unavoidable "collateral
damage" to civilians.
Iím not saying that we shouldnít drop a few bombs here and there
on some other targets. After all, back in July our Department
of Defense proclaimed, "The United States reserves the
right to strike targets at a time and a place and a manner of our
choosing." In other words, we can bomb anyone, anywhere, anyway
we damn well please. In February President Bush ordered attacks
on five locations around Baghdad "to
get Saddam Husseinís attention." That policy obviously
succeeded beyond our wildest expectations. No reason we shouldnít
try it again. Nor will I be the kind of party-pooper who complains
whenever the military has a little harmless fun rattling Moammar
Qadhafiís cage. Libya would be insulted if they were left out
of the "network of terror." But doesnít it make more sense
to go after the bigger and more obviously guilty parties first?
Only when Hamburgís soil has been sown with salt will true-blue
red-blooded Americans be able to sleep soundly at night.
John Galvin is a businessman living in Cincinnati.
His most recent publication is "Humanae Vitae: A Critical Re-evaluation."