When I was a lad growing up in rural Maine and Florida, my father, a sailor, cop and
fighter-at-large in his younger (and not so younger) days, would frequently ask me about my
schoolyard fracases. Some I won, and some ended in a draw.
When I did not win outright, my dad would ask me why I didn't hit the other fellow
in the head with a brick. I would usually reply that I did not want to go to "reform school,"
which back in the 1960s was an unpleasant thought indeed.
Back then, when two kids got into it, it was no big deal. No one got sued and no one
went to jail. It was a fight, and when it was over, the contestants would oftentimes become
friends or at least get along a little better because they now had some more respect for each
other and understood the consequences of "calling someone out."
I wish the same could be said for the war on terror, but in this fight, the United States
would be foolish to think that the war is going to end after a quick 'punch-up" (a Rhodesian
army term for fight) followed by the enemies shaking hands and making nice. And the stupidest
thing we can do is continue this asinine tit-for-tat policy: "If you noogie me, I'll punch you in
the nose," followed by: "Oh yeah? Well, if you punch me in the nose, I'll shoot your dog," and
so on.
Given Vice President Dick Cheney's public admission that we are most certain to take
another big hit in the near future (intelligence reports about al-Qaeda hint it will be even bigger
than Sept. 11), it is plainly evident that the time has come to get out my father's brick.
That is, sincerely promise our opponents that, should they up the ante, we will flip
over the card table, break off the legs and beat them all to death in a loud, painful and terrible manner.
Vitually every international terrorist group, whether linked to al-Qaeda or not, receives some sort
of support from a government. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine receives support
from Syria. Islamic Jihad receives support from Syria and Iran, as do Hamas and Hezbollah. Iraq
supports Hamas, Islamic Jihad and others. Saudia Arabia supports a combination of all of these
and al-Qaeda. And Libya supports Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines.
The policy would be this: We announce to the world that the next time a major terrorist
attack is perpetrated against the United States, within 24 hours of our learning who the culprits
are, we will melt a major city in each of the countries that supports that terrorist group.
Horrible? Absolutely. Necessary? Definitely. We are talking about our national
survival here, which is a concept most Americans have yet to grasp. For us to survive, we must
make countries understand that supporting terrorism in any way is an untenable proposition,
one that will result in the terrorism-supporting government being destroyed.
This strategy plays directly upon the most basic of human instincts: survival. When the
people who run these rogue governments understand that their personal survival is now on
the line, they will, without question, stop supporting terrorism.
Sudden, extreme escalation of the violence level in retaliation for an unprovoked attack
is the only thing terrorist Islamic governments understand. Once we start driving that point home,
they will change their ways.
Bob Newman, a retired Marine, is the author of 18 books.
[ Home ] [Joke O' The Day ]
[
Patriotic Corner ] [ Poetic Pieces ] [ Politics ]
[ Miscellaneous ] [ Archives ]
