Wednesday, February 22, 2006

The Other International Test

Given that so many here insist that a broad coalition at our side shows our enemies that we have the backing of the international community and will improve our war effort, it is interesting to see what our enemies think of this theory.

The Gulf War of 1990-1991, is of course the Gold standard today for the "international test" crowd. You know, UN approval, French participation, and a host of supporting characters? If only we'd gotten the same level of support in Iraq in 2003 instead of a so-called sham coalition, our enemies would have known they were isolated and run in panic.

Great theory. Very tidy. But our enemies think of the Gulf War as a shameful easy victory. As for the value of allies in 1991? Well:

Even so, the Americans brought with them forces from 30 countries to take the blows on their behalf, should events not turn out the way they were supposed to. In the end, the Arabs, the Europeans, and Japan paid the costs of the war, plus fees!

Interesting that our enemies saw lots of allies and financial support in 1991 as a sign of our fear and weakness rather than a sign of strength.

The key is to just to go after the enemy in the field and kill them. With or without allies, with agents, or special forces, or brigades, or air power as appropriate, we must pursue the enemy and hit them repeatedly until none remain alive and the folly of waging jihad is clear to all.