Some of us have suggested that blasting the Taliban into oblivion and occupying the entire country of Afghanistan just might not be the most effective way to destroy the Al Qaida terrorists. For this we have been called a lot of names and the unjustified assumption has been made that those of us who think that way must either be wimps or "soft on terror." Since I am neither of these things I've concluded that maybe some folks don't realize that there actually other tactics available that are both more effective in hurting the terrorists and more consistent with the classic Christian interpretation of the "just war." I remain dumbfounded that we began our attack on Al Qaida by wasting all that ordnance on the people who had not staged the attack upon us, giving the real enemy time to organize themselves and scatter.
My take on it has been from the beginning – attack the guys who did the "stunt" and tell the Taliban to stay out of our way. Make it plain that staying out of our way is very conducive to staying alive. Having divided Al Qaida from their hosts, hit them with whatever ordnance is available and do it right away. Is this totally unrealistic? Let's review the facts of how real soldiers dealt with real terrorists and see just how plausible this tactic can be.
It was the despicable Jimmy Carter that joined our nation to the unholy alliance with the Soviet Union, Great Britain, and Communist China and openly helped brutal and murderous communist bandits take down western cultures in southern Africa. Yep, that really happened and those of you who wander why some of us aren't so quick to jump on the government bandwagon need to consider this.
Despite the overwhelming force arrayed against them, the tiny, embattled country of Rhodesia gave the world an object lesson in how to fight terrorism. In 1978 the Rhodesians were to up the ante and show us all just what the term "economy of force mission" is all about.
The terrorists were staging in Zambia and had several large base camps near Lusaka. There were thousands of them in these base camps and they were well organized and well equipped. The crazed fanatics at the United Nations had embargoed Rhodesia while apostate Christian organizations like the World Council of Churches had joined with other liberals and left-wing extremists to supply and nurture these murderous terrorists. One might ask that if the United States was really engaged in a Cold War with the Soviet Union at that time, and if the security of our country and the free world really was on the line, then weren't the actions of Jimmy Carter and the organizations noted on the order of high treason? Just asking…
It's interesting to note that Rhodesia, a country with no interest whatsoever in South East Asian affairs, was one of the very few of our so-called allies to offer to support America in Vietnam with troops. They had been our allies in World War II and while the ill considered and murderous war in Vietnam was hardly a noble cause, the Rhodesians had none the less offered us their support simply because that is what allies do. Or used to do. The Rhodesians, like the Serbs, have learned that "ally" means something different to Americans than what it meant to them.
For more on the history of Rhodesia including information on the Tribal Trustlands, Unilateral Independence, and race relations in general please refer to The Case For Rhodesia. There is a nice capsule history of the Rhodesian military here: History of Rhodesian Army.
The short version is that during the first few years of freedom following the Unilateral Declaration of Independence from Britain Prime Minister Ian Smith's "renegade" government was one of the most ably managed and least governed countries in the world. The white people and educated blacks enjoyed a standard of living much like that in the United States or UK, while the tribal villagers had the highest standard of living in black Africa.
Then the Russians and the Chinese communists showed up and the Cubans – with mouths full of Marxist slogans and boatloads of guns and explosives – initially consisting mostly of landmines and submachine guns but later including late model East Bloc weaponry. Weapons that were employed against civilian farmers and tribal villagers… The terrorist incidents gradually escalated from isolated bandit attacks to full scale savagery.
To communist "fighters" their enemies are seen simply as criminals – the upper classes slated for "liquidation," and the lower classes for "re-education" and domination through unspeakable terror. Don't take my word for it. Read their own words – read Lenin or Mao and remember that their body count suggests that they meant the things they said. Then ask yourselves why this is not taught in our schools – it's a fair question in a country dominated by leftists and their tedious claims to the moral high ground.
The world ignored horrific attacks like the slaughter and mutilation of innocent tribal villagers, and the Viscount disaster – where terrorists shot down a passenger plane with a Russian strella missile, and then raped and butchered the survivors. Read the words of a Rhodesian pastor whose sermon "The Silence is Deafening" is a dreadful indictment of the West's response to that atrocity. Seeing how America in its current war on terrorism expects the whole world to get on board because of the presumed moral culpability of our enemies one can only wonder how that same America could blithely ignore acts of terrorism as brutal and deadly as that one.
The British disgraced themselves once and for all by refusing even to sell prosthetics to Rhodesia when a young farm girl lost her legs to a terrorist mine, planted by fanatics who were cheered on by those same Brits. Russian ships jammed Rhodesian communications and broke the daily "shackle" codes used by the military in the field so quickly that it was assumed that no comms were really secure. Rhodesia had few friends and the embargo began to bite deeply early on. The fight however, continued – the Rhodesians were anything but quitters.
By the mid seventies thousands of well organized terrorists were staging in Mozambique and Zambia, so called "front line" states. That translates into "countries where communist dictators had already seized control." I "visited" the camps in Mozambique myself and can testify to the truth of that statement. The camps in Zambia had a prior visit from a battle group best remembered by the call sign of the tactical air commander, "Green Leader." That was the operation that could have, and perhaps should have served as a model to the US when we attacked Afghanistan.
Terrorists were staging in Zambia and routinely crossing the Zambezi to murder and maim Rhodesian citizens. (Again – I am an eyewitness having been engaged in a rather nasty affair on the Zambezi where we knocked out a terrorist group coming across the river from Zambia) Zambia could have legitimately been construed as an enemy and the Rhodesians could have readily bombed Lusaka. They did not – they were able to focus on fighting their real enemies who were the ZIPRA and ZANLA terrorists cadres so beloved of the leftist media in Peking, Moscow, Britain, and America.
The Rhodesians had a major advantage over the United States, however, when it came to fighting terrorists. They weren't concerned for world opinion or coalitions and had no thoughts of "nation building," those folks were focused! Plus, the government was actually responding to the will of the people for if there ever was a government that was "of the people, by the people, for the people," it was that of the Rhodesians. It makes a difference when you are defending the people as opposed to defending some broadly defined "national interest" that somehow never seems to benefit anyone you know.
The Rhodesians were wonderful improvisers and put together an assault group with obsolete jet fighter-bombers, helicopters, and old Dakotas for the paratroops. The forces used for raids into host countries were extremely lean by modern standards. Less than a hundred paratroopers and some SAS types plus air force personnel, some medics and engineers. They had learned to coordinate their forces very smoothly and bring overwhelming force against a specific target. The strike force operated quite similarly to American Special Forces in Afghanistan as far as tactics go – small groups of well-trained men with a lot more radios and machine guns than normal infantry. That got them a lot of bang for the buck.
So one bright day these Rhodesians brought death to the terrorists in Zambia without harming a single Zambian civilian or soldier, and they did it with incredible panache. How? Try this on for size:
"Tower, this is Green Leader, this is the Rhodesian Air Force. We are now in control of your airspace and no plane will land or take off until further notice. Planes in the air will circle in a holding pattern that we will assign. We will give you further instructions as we proceed." Green Leader was the code name of the Rhodesian air commander who simply took control of the airspace over Lusaka and despite the Zambians having an air force that included Mig 17 interceptors (the equal of the Rhodesian's Hawker Hunters) those folks got real wise real fast and froze in place. Green Leader and his small force of Hunters effectively neutralized the Zambian armed forces for several long critical hours. (For a live transmission of this communication, there is actually a tape of it available on the web.)
Meantime, back at the terrorist base camps, Armageddon. First, "Golf" Bombs (homemade concussion bombs – very powerful) to daze those already dozy characters, more strafing and bombing, then airborne folks came in on helicopters with light infantry weapons to finish them off. Paratrooper "Stop Groups" were dropped further out from the target area and sealed off escape from the base camps. Few terrorists were able to escape. Thousands of "Terrs" as they were called, would butcher no more civilians and chant no more communist slogans. They had been wiped out without ever raising any effective resistance at all. When the raid was complete, tons of firearms and munitions were airlifted back to Rhodesia or blown up. When the assault forces had completed their work, Green Leader calmly and politely returned control of the Zambian air space back to Zambia!
Zambian zeal for the terrorist cause was somewhat dampened by this, as one might well imagine! Bombing the Zambians would have made them angry and they would have called for revenge and it could well have spiraled into that many more deaths. Instead, the Zambian government got a revealing look at their own vulnerability without suffering the indignity (and casualties) of an all-out attack. As for the terrorists? They were the devil's problem after that.
It should be noted that photographs of the camps and the weaponry seized there were made available to the western press but were ignored. The LA Times spoke of an attack by Rhodesian mercenaries on a refugee camp. Does the media have a leftist agenda? You be the judge.
The Rhodesians were able to strike this blow because they knew perfectly well that they were fighting for survival and that could be attained only by making the best possible use of their military. They were minding their own business and not intervening in the affairs of others, and even in their most awesome displays of force were careful to target only the guilty and limit so called "collateral damage." There was no antiwar movement in Rhodesia. Fathers, sons, and even grandfathers (Dad's Army) did their call-ups in the army or police reserve.
The terrorist enemy, on the other hand, followed the tried and true communist tactic of striking civilians, black and white; torture and mutilation were their stock and trade. Is it unfair to ask why the American government supported those people?
The Rhodesians eventually went down, betrayed at last in their naiveté by their "friends" in the British commonwealth. Although by then the country was under the aegis of a bi-racial government led by the Bishop Abel Muzarewa, this was not enough for the international community. So called "peace-keeping" forces from the Commonwealth kept a close eye on the Rhodesian forces while abandoning the helpless villagers to the depredations and intimidation of the terrorist forces – it was obvious when it was too late, that the door should never have been opened to them. The socialist government of Britain, like their more overtly communist allies, was only happy when the thugs were running the show.
I believe it is time to ask ourselves, as Americans, if we wish to follow this path, and hand our civilization over to the third world and forsake for ever the traditions of our western cultural heritage, and sink like Rhodesia, into a mire of inefficiency, corruption and brutality. It is the path we are on; it is the path down which political correctness is leading us and it is the cherished dream of our enemies that we should do so. Why Americans are throwing their freedom at the feet of a government that is leading us down that path is beyond me and sometimes I fear that ultimately we have just betrayed too many friends, murdered too many unborn babies, and stuck our noses into too many places where we had no business, and that perhaps the good Lord has finally just given us over to our own depravity.
There is an answer of course. There is no rule set in stone that says we must capitulate to the left, that we must answer only to those whose policies are those of savage and depraved beasts.
Every wicked agenda has an ultimate goal – to see where America is heading you have only to look to modern day Zimbabwe, where once there were moderation and good manners, and now there is epidemic, starvation and depravity.
Why do we as Americans act against our own best interests? Why do we allow ourselves to be ruled by the left wing press and outright criminals like Ted Kennedy, John McCain and Bill Clinton? Why is a man like George Bush, whose dream is to throw open our borders to the riff raff of the world considered a hero by so many? I say to you that we can still repent of our evil and foolish ways; that we can still restore our society and dismantle the apparatus of empire, but it will take commitment and integrity. We will have to stop murdering our children and nurturing the worst elements in our culture, and I suppose that is just too much to ask. It would be inconvenient, and inconvenience is more than we are willing to put up with in this postmodern Dark Age in which we find ourselves.
February 13, 2002
