Michael Scheuer | Non-Intervention

The previous piece published here (18 November 2015) and a subsequent interview on Michael Smirconish’s CNN program have drawn a surprising number of irate if juvenile comments, not to this site but to CNN, the Huffington Post, and a considerable number of other apparently defeat-loving websites. Now widely tagged by these folks as a “sociopath,” I am encouraged to write a bit more as a follow-on to the piece that drove these Obama-like, arrogant adolescents into vituperative snits that demonstrated nothing so much as that they share Obama’s profound historical ignorance and a daft believe that the United States can continue to exist without acting to defend itself via all-out war or — preferably — neutrality and non-intervention.

As a starting point it is worth noting an eternal truism: When your nation is attacked and is at war, you and your nation will be killed unless the attackers are either eradicated or diverted to less difficult and more lucrative foes. Therefore, the enemy, his supporters, sympathizers, and infrastructure — all of it — are legitimate targets. Unless America is devastatingly attacked — a major attack unlike the recent skirmish in Paris — my own preference is not to fight this war overseas but stop our unnecessary and mujahideen-motivating intervention in the Muslim world, remedy the proliferation of domestic Islamists and the other domestic problems noted in the previous article, and leave the enemy abroad to continue to drift into an utterly catastrophic region-wide sectarian war.

A resolve by the United States to henceforth be a neutral and non-interventionist power would have the added benefit of bringing an end to European interventionism in the Islamic world and thereby deprive the Sunnis and Shias of the U.S.-NATO-manufactured interventionist glue that has long held together their movements. Europe has unilaterally disarmed since the demise of the USSR, brings little to any struggle save rules-of-war that ensure it loses, and has courage to fight only so long as they are confident America is in the lead, ready to pay for the endeavor, and will pull their chestnuts out of the fire if need be. And, in any event, the Europeans will soon need to get home to fight the domestic Islamist insurgencies that gradually will emerge as pay-back for decades of mad — that is, multicultural — immigration, refugee, and open-borders policies.

If the Huffington posters’ argument — Americans want more intervention but do not want to defend the republic by destroying its enemies — is representative of the citizenry’s consensus, the aftermath of the next Islamist attack in the United States ought to be considered and prepared for. On that issue, I have some suggestions.

Since 9/11, I have thought that most important result of the next significant attack in the United States would be some level of violence against Muslim or Muslim-looking Americans. The human, physical, and economic damage caused by the next attack may be great or small, but it is almost certain that it will include Islamist fighters who are U.S. citizens, residents, and/or illegal aliens, as well as non-Americans who have illegally entered the United States across the open southern border. (NB: As Islamist leaders, on average, are light years smarter than U.S. leaders, they are more than likely to recognize the internal discontent and perhaps violence they will cause in the United States by using — or even appearing to use — the open southern border as a point of entry for the attack.)

The bulk of U.S.-citizen Muslims will have nothing to do with the next attack and many may not even have sympathy for it. But other Americans will be enraged that after twenty years of war the U.S. government has utterly failed to annihilate the Islamists abroad, control U.S. borders, or — the best and most security-producing bet — stop intervening in and caring about what goes on in the Islamic world. Lashing out verbally or violently against Muslims or Muslim-looking people seems a likely and perhaps a natural response.

But such a response — while understandable — would be wrong from the legal, societal, and commonsense viewpoints. When the next attack occurs, Americans must count ten while totally ignoring the politicians’ lying claims that the Islamists have nothing to do with religion and attack because they hate freedom, voting, democracy, etc. The focus of Americans must be on ridding themselves of those who enabled the attack. The Islamists who attack will be the actual trigger pullers, bombers, and killers. Hopefully, they will die or be executed on the domestic battlefield and save us the cost of trials and the sorry but inevitable spectacle of much of the Democratic Party coming to their defense.

But the vile villains, the real cause of the next attack in the United States, will be those prominent Americans who have willfully refused to defend the United States either by exterminating the Islamist forces or, better yet, by stopping their arrogant and bloody campaign to impose their abstract and inapplicable values and lifestyles on Muslims who do not want them and will to fight to be left free to decide their own future, even if that future is not what the seemingly racist U.S. governing elite demands of those it deems to be its little brown brothers.

So when the next attack hits, the following U.S. leaders and groups ought to be the focus of the legitimate rage of American citizens. Such a focus will inform the citizenry why the United States is in its current disastrous position vis-a-vis Islam and point toward precisely the kind of man or woman — ones whose motto is America First — that they ought to vote for to begin to brake the nation’s slide toward hell. (NB: The following folks know they are guilty of the deliberate negligence and deceit that has cost immense amounts of American blood, treasure, and social cohesion. That is why so many are supporting the neutering of the Second Amendment; they justly fear well-merited retribution from the governed. It is not a coincidence, moreover, that Europe’s leaders cracked down on gun owners immediately after the recent Paris attacks. They, too, know that they enabled the Islamist attacks. The crack-down was protect themselves not to prevent the Islamists from getting guns.)

So here are a few of the enemy-enablers to focus on after the Islamists’ next attack in America:

• President George H.W. Bush and his foreign-policy advisers for starting a quarter century of losing wars for the United States with their madly Wilsonian, enemy-making, war-causing, Neocon-empowering, and bankrupting doctrine of a “New World Order”.
• President Bill Clinton for not using the multiple chances he had to kill Osama bin Laden in 1997-1999, thereby knowingly sheltering and nurturing bin Laden and the Islamist movement until they matured into a lethal national security threat to the United States.
• George W. Bush and his Israel-First advisers for invading Iraq; sending U.S. Marines and soldiers to Iraq and Afghanistan to fight and die in wars he never intended to win; and opening an easy westward road from Afghanistan for the Islamists, a road that now has reached the Atlantic Ocean.
• Barack Obama for being a close and reliable ally for both al-Qaeda and the Islamic State, and refusing — like Bush, Clinton, and Bush — to explain to Americans that unrelenting U.S. government intervention overseas means unending war with Islam. If he was an Islamist, Obama could not have been more help to the Islamists and their increasingly effective campaign to mobilize young Muslim men to fight the West.
• The Neoconservatives, Israel-Firsters, and their media abettors for corrupting the U.S. political process with money and media-power and making America a war-mongering nation and the eternal protector of Israel, which is utterly irrelevant to U.S. national interests. Listing the names of those suborned by the lucre of the Neocons and Israel-First would take hours, but it at least should be noted that all the presidential candidates save Trump, Fiorina, and Paul are on-board with these disloyal citizens, and that Marco Rubio and Hillary Clinton have signed up to be the bought-and-paid-for personal presidential candidates of Jewish-American billionaires who are pro-Israel zealots desperate to keep the United States mired, spending, bleeding, and, indeed, dying on Israel’s behalf in the Middle East. Rubio, in fact, may have enslaved himself, and potentially all Americans, to two such people.
• The U.S. Department of Education, the members of the nation’s teachers’ unions, and most universities’ social science faculties for training young people to be ignorant of, or hateful toward America’s history; to be unable to recognize that there are absolutes when it comes to right and wrong; to believe that the 1st and 2nd Amendments and much of the rest of the Constitution are expendable and that the resulting minority rule-based tyranny will be a better form of government; and to disregard the melancholy fact that if your nation unnecessarily intervenes in the affairs of other states, it invariably generates war, and, in wartime, a nation dies if it does not employ every tool at hand to destroy its enemies. The Department of Education and America’s teachers at all levels produce young people who are not citizens, but permanently immature automatons who have been and will be preyed upon by demagogic, race-baiting, palsied-by-theory Democratic politicians. On this issue the choice is simple, eliminate the Department and the teachers’ unions or return the voting age to at least twenty-one years.
• The craven leaders of the U.S. Muslim community for refusing, when testifying before Congress, to tell the truth, which is that Muslim-American youngsters are not “brain-washed” by evil unIslamic men into becoming mujahideen, but are motivated by their understanding of their faith’s requirement that they join fellow Muslims on the battlefield to defend Islam against the U.S.-European military interventions that kill Muslims, wreck Muslim societies, protect Arab tyrants; seek to impose secularism; and allow Israel to do as it pleases.

So that’s a bit of a scorecard that provides grist for assessing who is to blame for the next Islamist attack in the United States. It could be much longer and more detailed, but it is enough to provide focus while Americans wait for and then watch the next attack and its aftermath. The much-needed, two-step, post-attack recipe for American citizens is (a) to cheer for those who kill every attacker who does not blow him/herself up in the attack or tries to surrender, in other words, raising what the great Virginian, Thomas Jackson called the “black flag” of war, and (b) to then launch a campaign to rid the republic of the influence of those who follow and perpetuate the ideas and plans of the Islamists’ above-listed U.S.-citizen enablers, doing so completely and also wholly peacefully, if at all possible.

Honoring Paris’s dead and wounded is now being done with crocodile tears, candles, moments of silence, crowds of strangers holding hands, pledges of solidarity, the endless, pro forma singing of national anthems, and bouquets of followers mounded up as colorful, if wilting, temples to the dead.

None of this nonsense honors anyone, it is simply another meaningless iteration of the made-for-TV, post-Islamist-attack “Festival of the Dead,” an event to which Westerners seem to be intensely attached and are now institutionalizing. After all, it’s a chance to get outdoors, walk a bit, and mingle with other self-professed and mourning lovers of humanity. It is, in fact, all hogwash. It allows Western people to feel they have done something to contribute to victory over the enemy when in fact they have done less to honor the dead and destroy their killers than their national governments — and that truly is quite an underachievement.

But there is a time-honored and effective way to honor the Paris dead, as well as the U.S. and Western soldiers whose lives and limbs have been wasted since 2001 by national leaders who did not intend to win. If the United States and the West really do not want to do the smartest thing and encourage a Sunni-Shia sectarian war, then it has the near-term option of destroying all those facilities in Syria and Iraq that are essential to the Islamic State’s effort to build a state or, in their words, rebuild the Caliphate.

Currently, IS is in possession of:

• Highways and bridges
• Portions of a railway system
• Fleets of tanker trucks, construction vehicles and machinery, and farming equipment
• Cell phone tower networks and overhead power lines
• Improved waterways and irrigation canals/systems
• Potable water and urban sanitation systems
• Hydroelectric dams and reservoirs
• Airfields
• Grain silos
• Mills for processing wheat and other grains
• Facilities for mining minerals
• Oil fields, wells, and refineries
• Gas fields, wells, and distribution systems
• Pipelines for fuel, gas, and water
• Factories, government buildings, warehouses, and military bases
• Farmland that is growing crops
• Hospitals
• Universities
• Police stations, military barracks, office buildings, and hotels that are used to store arms and house fighters

Each of these things, needless to say, is part of the IS military effort. They are even more important, however, to its effort to build a state, fund an economy, attract foreign volunteers, and feed, employ, and care for a population. They all are also wonderfully visible, cannot be readily moved or hidden, and are just the kind of targets that Western air forces can annihilate in an air campaign of relatively short duration. For the first time since 1996, the Islamists have acquired a large and valuable set of physical assets that they cannot afford to lose, and they are assets that are perfectly suited to the West’s conventional military forces and so will give Western militaries a respite from the folly of trying to defeat IS by killing their fighters one or two at a time.

Destroy the items listed above and you send IS back to being just very good Islamist insurgents; still dangerous, but no longer advancing the reconstruction of the Caliphate.* Moreover, the loss of these productive assets via air attacks, and the high numbers of civilians that surely will die therein, will create an unhappy and restive population prone to rebellion in the regions IS controls.

In such a situation, IS leaders will face enemies in each direction they turn, and will have lost the means of appealing to the young Muslims — and many older ones — with the powerfully alluring idea and nascent reality of rebuilding the Caliphate.

For the West, the pulverized, smoldering ruins of these state-building assets, which IS has preserved because they cannot be replaced, and the moldering corpses of thousands who have cast their lot with IS or are simply present, will amount to its first strategic success against the Islamists since this religious war began in 1996.

For the United States to undertake this campaign as a unilateral mission — let Russian and French warplanes waste ordnance breaking concrete at Raqqah, and the rest of the EU cowers behind cheap bellicosity — would be a chance to, for now, break the back of IS’s caliphate-restoring effort. More important, the mission’s success would allow the United States to truthfully claim it had done its part militarily and return home to a permanent policy of non-intervention, taking none of the resulting refugees, ignoring screeches from the human-rights mafia, the EU, the UN, and the new-age Pope, and spending not a penny to rebuild anything in Iraq or Syria.

By attacking and then walking away, the United States would have lessened the IS threat for all and leave it up to Putin, Hollande, Cameron and any other Western leader to decide if he or she wants to stay engaged in the fight against IS instead of getting out, cleaning up the Islamists in their own nations, and letting the Shia-Sunni sectarian war flourish while watching the two sides devour each other.

So following, for the United States, is a doable, unilateral, and non-time consuming plan with which to execute the just mentioned campaign, permanently extract the United States from the Muslim world, and let that world go to the hell it has been preparing for itself for a millennium. Let me admit that I have no military experience, but, hey, look where the West Pointers have us after nearly twenty years of failed war fighting and abject loses in Iraq and Afghanistan.

1. The U.S. president orders the U.S. military to prepare an air campaign against the targets listed above. If the U.S. military is worth the money taxpayers have invested — at this point, an open question — all the targets on the list will already have been located and prioritized. A little time will be needed to move additional aircraft into range, say, three or four weeks.**
2. When the U.S. military tells the president it is ready to attack, the president directs the secretary of state to officially recognize the Islamic State regime as a legitimate nation state and warmly welcome it into the vicious jungle that has been created by that useless, effete, and war-causing entity called the “International Community.”
3. On the next day, the president calls a joint session of Congress to meet within 48 hours.
4. When the session convenes, the president asks for a declaration of war against the Islamic State and is given that constitutionally required declaration.
5. The president then orders the military to attack, and remains silent until the military reports its mission is accomplished.
6. With that victory in hand, the president addresses the nation, announces victory and the end of America’s war in Syria/Iraq. He then describes what the campaign accomplished, what the campaign cost in lives and money, and why Americans would no longer see their government militarily intervening anywhere in the world unless the United States is attacked or an imminent threat needs destroying. He should end the speech by saying to Americans, “Good night, God bless you, and God Bless America First”.

All told, such a U.S. air campaign ought to succeed as it plays to the U.S. military’s skills and will keep U.S. casualties low. If successful, it allows the United States to bid farewell to the Middle East — leaving it to whoever is stupid enough to want to be involved — and begin to focus on genuine U.S. national interests, like reducing the debt, controlling the borders, rebuilding the conventional military, severely limiting immigration, withdrawing from NATO, evicting illegal aliens, eliminating domestic Islamist organizations, and generally minding our own business.

Notes

*IS and al-Qaeda will still have forces elsewhere in the world and so will be troublesome. But the lesson taught by the above U.S. air campaign — which is, and ought to be, Americans are overwhelmingly powerful, indiscriminate killers, and a little bit crazy — will not be lost on the Islamists. They will keep contending for Yemen, which the Saudis have made a mess off and should be left to fix; Libya, which is a poisonous gift to Europe from the UK and France — Clinton and Obama simply playing adolescent morons whose democracy mongering gave cover to the Europeans — ought to be left to them to resolve; Egypt, where the Russians seem eager to take on a losing situation; and Afghanistan, where both the Russians and Chinese have no choice but to fight to keep the Islamists out of Central Asia. Regarding Europe, the Islamists have the upper hand there and may win, but only because the Europeans seem to have no pride in their national identities, no respect for, or passion to preserve what their civilization has accomplished over more than two millennia, and no real will to kill the bad guys and save themselves. In non-Maghreb Africa, Americans must attain energy self-sufficiency and thank God for the eternal presence of the Atlantic Ocean.

**The only American opponents of such action would be U.S. oil companies who lust for oil and gas from the fields IS holds in Syria and Iraq; U.S. arms makers who sell weapons in the region; Neoconservatives and Israel-Firsters who want endless U.S. engagement in the region so American blood can be shed to protect Israel; and the media, the so-called Peace Movement, and the college campuses, all of which are wholly owned subsidiaries of the Democratic Party. Opponents like these are all the more reason to undertake the campaign, win, and then come home to democratically or otherwise defeat the vermin.

Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in the 1830s that the education systems in Europe and the United States had stopped teaching children how to command when they became adults, and were teaching them only how to obey. Mr. de Tocqueville had that judgment right nearly two hundred years ago, and President Hollande, President Obama, and Prime Minister Cameron revalidated its accuracy in statements made after the superbly planned and executed Islamic State (IS) attacks in Paris on 13 November 2015.

• Mr. Hollande said the IS attacks were “an act of war” by IS against France. Note for the French president: The Islamists declared war on the United States and Europe in August, 1996. You, Mr. Hollande, and your hapless predecessors, Chirac and Sarkozy, ignored that declaration and behaved as if the Islamists were some two-bit criminal gang. You and they then wasted two decades trying to defeat them with completely irrelevant mantras meant to appease your electorates — especially feminists and your effeminate governing elite — while the excellent vanguard insurgent organization Al-Qaeda evolved into the Islamic State, probably the most skilled and best armed insurgent army the world has seen. The IS shooters surely killed those people in Paris on Friday night, but you, Mr. Hollande, as well as Chirac and Sarkozy, acted as their enablers by not making even a minimal effort to inform the French people of the enormity of the threat they faced from Islamists at home and abroad, a threat that emanates, in large part, because you have allowed the entry of so many Muslim immigrants and because of France’s extraordinarily long record of oppressive imperialism and needless intervention in the Muslim world. Apparently, Mr. Hollande, the French people are now rallying around your transient bellicosity, obeying your commands as they have been taught to do. A fellow named Maximilien Robespierre would have had a much quicker and more appropriate response to deliver to you and your predecessors for your deceit and criminal negligence toward the endangered citizens of what is now clearly becoming an ancient regime.
• Mr. Obama said that events in Paris are an “attack on the civilized world” by “radical extremists.” Note for the U.S. president: What, Mr. Obama, could you possibly know about a “civilized world”? The only “civilized world” that you believe in and work for is one in which you and your fellow Ivy Leaguers can create a permanently crippling public debt, defile Christianity at every opportunity, make a Third World cesspool of the United States via illegal immigration, encourage domestic racism and its violent product, govern as tyrants and act as if the constitution does not exist, and destroy your citizens’ industries, jobs, and communities in the name of the middle-class killing idol of free trade and combating global warming, the latter this year’s mad fetish of the elite and another tool for creating a one party-tyranny. But most of all, Mr. Obama, so dead are you to anything that could plausibly be described as “civilized” that you cannot find anything but praise and encouragement to give those who have since 1973 killed 60 million Americans and are now are starring in films in which they hold the still-beating hearts of those they are murdering in order to sell them to the highest bidder. You prate endlessly, Mr. Obama, about the inhumanity and barbarism of the “radical extremists,” but perhaps the admonition “barbarian know thyself” is more appropriate for you, your party, your Republican abettors, the media, and the academy, than it is for the Islamic State. It is you, Mr. Obama, and not IS, who is deceiving Americans about the severity of Islamist threat; about its religious legitimacy; and about you and your EU colleagues’ intentional motivation of the Islamist fighters by continuing U.S. and European military/cultural interventionism in the Muslim world, as well as by your support for Israel and Arab tyrants. It is you, Mr. Obama, not the Islamists — they are simply a worthy enemy that must be annihilated — who is creating a jungle in the United States to replace the once civilized and decent nation that you and your party are so effectively destroying.
• Mr. Cameron said the UK was “Shocked, but resolute. In sorrow, but unbowed. My message to the French people is simple: We stand with you, united.” Note for Britain’s Prime Minister: You, Mr. Cameron, have so long underplayed the severity of the Islamist threat and lied about the Islamists’ motivation, and have so long deceived Britons about how deeply, even grotesquely, you have reduced British military power, that your words are very much Orwellian. You and your Tory and Labor predecessors have reduced Britain to a military power respectable only because of its nuclear weapons, and you have sent your superb Royal Marines and soldiers to fight and die in wars you never intended to win. You and your predecessors — like your counterparts in the White House — have continued to intervene in the Muslim world and thereby strengthen the Islamist foe in every way that makes it a larger and more lethal enemy. At the same time, Mr. Cameron, you have — like your counterparts in the White House — systematically neutered you conventional military power and allowed your country to be inundated by Muslim immigrants, many of whom the chiefs of your intelligence services regularly claim are ready to wage a domestic war across the UK. Overall, to have a Cameron-led Britain standing by your side in a fight — like having a Hollande-led France — comes close to meaning nothing, but it does clearly imply that ordinary Britons and French better desperately hope that the United States comes to their rescue. But this time, Mr. Prime Minister, the Yanks — militarily degraded, financially crippled, and put at war with each other by their president — are not coming.

Why do Americans, French, Britons, and so many other Western peoples put up with such deceit and intentional destruction from their leaders? See Mr. de Tocqueville for the reason. Too many of the West’s citizens have been educated in schools in which ahistorical, anti-commonsense, and pro-minority-rule curricula are written and mandated for use by central governments. They are further dumbed down by political correctness and teachers who have been educated by those same government written and mandated curricula. The result has been the decades-long production of citizen-automatons, men and women who silently nod in agreement with the counter-intuitive absurdities they are taught and become afraid that their grades, careers, and perhaps personal safety are at risk if they speak their mind to oppose the madness that spews from their teachers’ mouths. As a result, the trait of obedience is inculcated in students; they received no training to question let alone command

The splendidly professional — and open-borders assisted — IS attacks in Paris, then, amount to what Jefferson called a “fire bell in the night.” But the tolling of that bell is not in the first instance a warning about the threat the Islamists pose. After all, for two decades they have told all of us in detail what they are motivated by, what they intend to do to defeat us, why their actions are required and guided by their faith, and why U.S. and Western intervention in the Muslim world is — after Allah and the Prophet’s words — the main source of their strength.

The bells rung by the Islamists’ attacks in Paris, then, ought rather to be interpreted by Americans and Europeans as an unambiguous signal for Western citizens to rid themselves of leaders like Hollande, Obama, Cameron, and many others in most Western political parties, men and women who are habitual liars, doom-dealing spendthrifts, national-security destroyers, and politicians bent on accruing ever more power to themselves and central governments. It is time for Western citizenry to recall that members of republics and democracies — if those systems are to endure in fact and not just in name — must not be taught to be obedient and afraid to speak their mind to openly oppose governmental diktats from tyranny-prone regimes like Mr. Obama’s. Rather, those citizens must be taught (a) to command their leaders to obey the law, speak the truth, and do what the majority demands or face retribution, and (b) to actively resist any leader’s refusal to so with suitable and incrementally aggressive means — argument, debate, votes, new political parties, public demonstrations, boycotts, civil disobedience, and, finally, weapons — until they either conform with the citizenry’s demands or are removed from power.

Quite simply, the Islamist threat will never be clearly understood in the United States and the EU until leaders like Hollande, Obama, and Cameron are removed, thereby creating an environment in which the easily available facts about the Islamist movement can be openly expressed, debated, and evaluated. Such a discussion will be helpful in three ways:

1. All citizens will be able to learn how the enemy thinks (realistically and rationally), how he intends to prevail (draining economies and choking Western civil liberties), and what kind of war this is (total and religious).
2. If a majority then decides it wants a war to the death with Islam by pursuing the status quo policy of intervention and support for Israel and Arab tyrants, it can vote for candidates who will restore conscription, greatly increase taxes to pay for the war, and severely constrict civil liberties.
3. If a majority decides against total war, it can vote for candidates who will forbid unnecessary overseas military and cultural interventions; sharply limit the power of national executives; close national border, evict illegal immigrants, and limit legal immigration; insist on mandatory programs aimed at assimilating the few immigrants admitted; quickly rebuild conventional military and security forces; and stand back and watch what just might be a West-saving, all-out war between Shia and Sunnis.

Neither the second option nor the third is very palatable, but each is a legitimate choice. The West can militarily annihilate the Islamists at an enormous cost in lives and money coupled with the maintenance of tyranny across the Islamic world, or it can step back and watch Sunnis and Shia destroy each other in a great sectarian war. Either option has a chance to eventually end the Islamist threat to the United States and the West.

But one thing is certain, by refusing to make a definite choice between the two options above, and instead standing pat with the pathetic, multiculturalist likes of Hollande, Obama, and Cameron, obedient Western citizens will most certainly ensure an Islamist victory over what little now remains of what Obama claims is the “civilized world.”

From this distance, Mr. Putin, it appears that when you unleashed the Russian air force on 30 September 2015 you expected to save Bashir al-Assad’s regime and bring order to Syria and Iraq in a relatively short period of time. Well, the application of Russian air power is continuing, but only a month after its start, the Islamic State’s (IS) fighters responded by executing a superbly professional operation that destroyed a Russian airliner flying over the Sinai, killing the 224 people aboard.

Damn tough luck, Mr. Putin. It is clear that Russia has a serious strategic problem with the Islamists, but in the past six weeks you behaved as a reckless, ignorant, and really rather dumb jackass, as have Mr. Clinton, Mr. Bush. Mr. Obama, Senators McCain, Graham, Rubio, and Cruz, former-Secretary Clinton, Mr. Cameron, Mr. Blair, Mrs. Merkle, Mr. Hollande, and sundry other lesser European leaders.

You have behaved as if your air force would be sufficient to deliver victory, that it would intimidate the mujahideen into quitting, and that Russia would suffer few casualties as you unfolded in Syria a Russian version of the Cheney-Rumsfeld “cakewalk” in Iraq. The odds also are enormous that you never bothered to read a word of what the mujahideen have said and written since Osama bin Laden declared war in 1996, and so you were entirely ignorant of the kind of enemy you were facing. Frankly, Mr. Putin, these are very bad grades for a man that history will assess as aspiring to be “Tsar of all the Russians.”

Since the year of 1996, Islamist leaders, sub-leaders, theologians, field commanders, and fighters-in-the-trenches have said U.S./Western interventionism had motivated them to wage war, that they would kill as many of their enemies as was necessary to rid the Islamic world of Western military interventionists, and that they were waging a religious war, one that their faith required them to fight until they won or were eradicated.

The Islamists also told their foes that they intended to geographically expand their war as quickly and as far as possible, and that they believed that, while victory could only be granted by Allah, they could assist the divinity by inflicting casualties on their sophomoric, casualty averse-enemies. They also explained that, Allah willing, they would cause a steadily increasing drain on Western nations’ treasuries — especially that of the United States — which had already been bankrupted by the devastatingly destructive spendthrifts who govern them. Allah, it seems clear, has delivered in spades to those on whom his favor falls.

Whatever response you come up with to avenge the avenging IS attack on the Russian passenger aircraft, you must do it with hard but clear-seeing eyes. If you respond only with more intense aerial attacks, you will be playing into IS hands because a war that was caused by tepid Western military interventionism can hardly be won by more of the same tepid military interventionism. Such attacks will have little impact on the Islamists’ capabilities and manpower, will strengthen mujahideen morale because your reliance on air power will signal that Russia does not intend to win, will increase popular sympathy and clerical support for the mujahideen across the Muslim world, and will further drain your treasury, which is in even worse shape than the U.S. treasury. Moreover, such under-achieving but Muslim-killing aerial attacks will further anger the lethal and growing domestic Islamist forces you confront in Russia, the Caucasus, and Central Asia, and probably will hasten the large-scale attack those fighters are now planning to stage inside Russia. That attack is the post-Sinai shoe that has yet to drop, and when it does, Mr. Putin, you will look as much the bewildered ninny as those other “leaders” mentioned above.

What you are looking at, Mr. Putin, is the following absurd but all too real scenario. Only an enormous ground force — perhaps a million soldiers might provide enough shooters to get the Islamists’ attention — has a ghost of a chance of defeating the mujahideen. And you must keep in mind that even waging war in that way will not ensure victory. You will recall, Mr. Putin, that when you and your colleagues were still strutting, arrogant, and murderous Soviets, sufficient force was not used in Afghanistan and so the Red Army’s “limited contingent” there — the model for Rumsfeld’s “small footprint” — was soundly thrashed and evicted by the Afghan Islamists after Moscow foolishly had started this whole jihad mess by invading that never-beaten country in 1979.

In addition, if Russian forces fight a whole-hog war in Syria/Iraq, Mr. Putin, do not think that it will at all resemble anything predicted or advocated by the self-styled but always-wrong experts who staff the West’s counter-insurgency brains-trust — David Kilcullen, Max Boot, David Petraeus, John Nagl, etc.

• There will be no economic component to the war your forces wage, except for Russia’s deepening bankruptcy. It will have to be all raw, indiscriminate, and unrelenting military power because the enemy will not compromise his faith for, say, a modern, Russian-paid for irrigation system, highway, or mobile-phone network.
• There will be no hearts-and-minds component to the war because there are absolutely zero hearts and minds to win among the Islamists, their supporters, and their quickly growing number of sympathizers. The Islamists are waging a religious war and have believed in and welcomed the reality that their jihad will end in only victory or death, and that either ending is in Allah’s hands alone.
• There will be no diplomatic breakthroughs and certainly no “political solution” to the war unless you militarily annihilate the Islamists and then militarily impose either Russian or Western paganism on whatever Muslims remain alive in the Syria/Iraq Theater. You could thereby establish a temporarily stable situation which would last until the coming Muslim generation reaches Kalashnikov age. (NB: Mr. Putin, if any of your political, intelligence, or military advisers tell you that “all wars have political solutions” and one can be reached in this case without first securing a complete military victory over the Islamists, have them shot, drawn, and quartered.)

There is one more item beginning “There will be no” which is so obvious that it ought not to be necessary to state. Still, given recent statements by you and you foreign minister it may be worth stating.

• There will be no effective help coming Russia’s way from the United States, the EU, or the Sunni Arab regimes.
• You must know, Mr. Putin, that the leaders and the elites of the United States and the EU are (a) perpetual adolescents; (b) reliable moral and physical cowards; (c) pseudo-intellectuals who cannot — despite expensive educations and history’s lessons — conceive of the immense and ruthless power possessed by a religion at war; (d) vicious haters of their own citizens, butchers of infants and military personnel, and fawning lovers and protectors of the Third World dregs that are inundating and destroying the cohesiveness of their societies.
• These men and women and their preferred and pampered minority groups, Mr. Putin, are walking/talking dead-people who are smugly but blindly striding toward domestic turmoil and perhaps a revolution that will — pray God — destroy them, and, at least in America, allow the nation to restore republicanism, Christianity, the rule of law, and traditional English liberties. Russia, Mr. Putin, is better-off without such allies, as they are regimes that will turn on you it if they lose a half-dozen soldiers or if a few mujahideen-supporting civilians are killed. If you and Russia really need massive military help from the United States and the EU, it would be best to get out of Syria now, use Russia’s military forces to annihilate the Islamists in the Caucasus, and spend whatever money you have to close the border between Central Asia and Afghanistan, across which Russia’s primary strategic threat from the Islamists will come.
• As for Saudi Arabia and the other Sunni Arab regimes, Mr. Putin, you must keep in mind that for them there is no happier, holier, or more desired outcome to this war than the Islamists’ annihilation of the apostate Shias and Alawites and their humiliation and bankrupting of the United States, the EU, and Russia. Indeed, you may have noticed that the media is reporting that the IS fighters have never used anti-tank weapons against Syrian armor as tellingly and in such numbers as they have since Russia entered the war. There is, of course, no need to for you wonder where those weapons are coming from, or who is paying for them.

So there you have it, Mr. Putin, you and Russia are in quite a fix. But as bad as things are, they could be worse. You might, for example, have the United States and the EU as your allies. As allies, they would help you in the way they helped themselves in Afghanistan; that is, they will take a problem that required a murderous, 15-month punitive expedition — killing all that moved, demolishing all that stood, and leaving behind a desert named “Peace” — and turn it into a decade-plus disaster that has left the Islamists stronger and able to project power into Central Asia and Pakistan. Indeed, the U.S. and NATO repeated the kind of childish, half-way military campaign you and your Soviet pals waged in Afghanistan — including a ridiculous reliance on Special Forces — but it has cost them infinitely more.

Take history’s indelible lesson, Mr. Putin, expecting victory when tepidly fighting alongside effeminate post-Cold-War Western allies is a fool’s dream or an ignoramus’s expectation. If you are not willing to go all in and do your own dirty work until Russia destroys IS in Syria/Iraq, get all out and take care of your Islamist problem at home.

When an encrypted U.S. government communication system is tapped into by hackers or a foreign intelligence service, U.S. counter-intelligence officers must assume the worst-case scenario; that is, anything which might be useful to the attacker was taken. When an unencrypted system is tapped, no assumption is needed because there is not a single credible reason to think that an enemy power failed to tap the system or that anything less than everything was taken.

Mrs. Clinton’s unencrypted e-mail communications were stolen by all of America’s enemies — Russia, China, Israel, Iran, probably the Islamic State, etc. They also have stolen all of the e-mails that other senior administration officials, civil servants, generals, and intelligence officers sent to her, thereby becoming partners in what seems clearly to be her criminal behavior. (NB: It has been ignored by the media, but any administration official — including Obama — who knowingly did official business with Mrs. Clinton via her unencrypted channel also seems guilty of criminal activity.) To think otherwise is to display the same arrogant stupidity that her husband and each of his presidential successors did when they assumed Bin Laden and the Islamists were a finite number of religion-crazed, medieval neanderthals who did not mean what they said and could do no serious harm to the United States.

The use America’s enemies will make of Mrs. Clinton’s e-mails will be pretty much as follows:

• Because the Russians, Chinese, Iranians, Israelis, and others have all of Hillary’s unencrypted e-mails, as well as those e-mails sent to her by others in the same channel, their problem is not if to use them against her, but only the timing of when to use them.
• For each of these foreign governments it would be singularly unproductive to use this great, once-in-a-lifetime intelligence asset before the presidential election. Foreign leaders would gain little but the acute embarrassment of Mrs. Clinton and the outgoing Obama regime from pre-election publishing in either their domestic media or via leaks to Western journalists.
• The impact of pre-election publication, moreover, might cost Mrs. Clinton the presidency and she is — far and away — the favorite candidate of the Russians, Chinese, Israelis, and Iranians precisely because they have each stolen her communications and can use them to compromise her in the very same Oval Office that played host to feminist-hero Bill’s sexual suborning of a young female intern.
• Mr. Putin and his regime, among U.S. enemies, are in the cat-bird seat in regard to blackmailing Mrs. Clinton because they have her e-mails and they know what Hillary, Bill, the State Department, and the Clinton Foundation did to advance the interests of Russia and other foreign states and companies — and the Clinton’s personal wealth — while she was Secretary of State.

In sum, Mrs. Clinton’s e-mails are a treasure of personal and — given it is the Clintons — almost certainly salacious information. As this is written, foreign leaders and their intelligence services may well know who Bill and/or Hillary are sleeping with, which of Secretary Clinton’s official decisions were made to benefit a foreign nation and/or the Clintons, how many movie stars were exchanging gossipy e-mails with her while Ambassador Stevens and his team died, what Obama administration scandals she knew of and helped the president and other cabinet members to evade, what means she used to undercut Obama to advance her political aspirations, etc. If such matters are discussed in Hillary’s e-mails, moreover, the e-mails sent to her will give the public equal insight into the unsavory/illegal activities of her correspondents.

Also, and more important, Mrs. Clinton’s e-mails and the responses to them are a treasure for U.S. enemies because they deal with her official diplomatic activities, as well as present and planned U.S. government policies — and those of our allies — that pertain to them and their interests. Those e-mails, too, are being reviewed by Mr. Putin, Mr. Rouhani, and their minions to identify which can best be used to threaten “President” Clinton with exposure if she refuses to compromise U.S. national interests and foreign-policy objectives.

When attempts by foreign governments are made to suborn an elected Mrs. Clinton — and they will be — she will be faced with two choices. First, she can refuse to cooperate and immediately and publicly inform Americans about the matter in her resignation speech, thereby destroying much of the value of the e-mails to America’s enemies. Second, she can agree to be suborned, accept large tranches of well-laundered cash from her new foreign employer; and pretend to be looking out for America while actively undercutting U.S. security.

Of the two, the latter choice seems more likely because of (a) the long and well-documented public record of Mrs. Clinton’s and her husband’s seemingly insatiable greed; (b) the reality that she and he are quite comfortable with and experienced at working for a foreign power, given the decades they have been taking “campaign contributions” from U.S.-citizen Israel-Firsters in return for compromising U.S. security on Israel’s behalf; and (c) the simple fact that if she cared a tinker’s damn about U.S. security and the republic’s survival she would have never, ever broken the law by using an unencrypted e-mail system for government business while secretary of state.

One must wonder how FBI Director Comey and the FBI and Attorney General Lynch and the Justice Department will ignore the foregoing reality when they refuse to indict the obviously guilty Mrs. Clinton? Oh, yes, I forgot, they are Democrats beholden to an anti-American Democratic president. As such the party and power must always come first, and all other Americans and their security, country, and liberty must always take the hindmost.

Lois Lerner redux, I suppose you might call it. Or, you might just call it tyranny.

Last Wednesday (28 October 2015), FOX’s Neil Cavuto interviewed a Congresswoman who argued that the United States had to stop trying to destroy Bashir al-Assad’s regime in Syria and concentrate on decisively defeating the Islamic State (IS), al-Qaeda, etc. How can that be done, Mr. Cavuto asked? The Congresswoman — who is a U.S. military veteran — responded that the use of Special Forces and air power can turn the trick. Always the gracious gentleman, Mr. Cavuto behaved as if the Congresswoman was making sense, providing insight, and pointing the way to victory. In truth, she was simply parroting the long-discredited line of the U.S. bipartisan governing elite.

This Congresswoman, let it be noted, is not the only military and former-military person who continues to advocate this formula long after it has proven an utter, costly, and bloody failure. This odd passion for championing unrelenting failure seems especially common among U.S. general officers. On FOX, for example, every former U.S. military general the network employs as a “FOX News Consultant” advocates this nonsense and, in general, has been wrong about every single aspect of the U.S. war against the Islamists before and since 9/11, most prominently in arguing that the now-disgraced General Petraeus’s “surge” delivered victory in Iraq when it did nothing but ensure the mujahideen escaped and lived to fight another day. (NB: I chose FOX’s generals to comment on here because I usually listen to FOX on SiriusXM Radio in the car. My hunch is that almost all of the panoply of former U.S. general officers who pontificate across the airwaves are equally as deceitful and as often wrong as those retired generals who appear on FOX.)

The sole soldierly source of sanity and commonsense on this issue on FOX is Colonel Ralph Peters, a man who speaks bluntly, honestly, and incisively when he states that Americans are fooling themselves if they believe the Obama administration’s deceitful assertions that its policies toward IS are leading to the group’s defeat and the United States to victory. Americans would greatly benefit from paying very close attention to Colonel Peters’ words, as well as from reading his splendid books on war and U.S. foreign affairs and his equally admirable and instructive novels about our Civil War.

The sum of all of this is that nearly 20 years after Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda declared war on the United States (August, 1996), Republican and Democratic presidents, their parties, most U.S. general officers, and virtually all of the media have somehow missed America’s magnificent, undeniable, and, indeed, overwhelming success in proving what cannot, has not, and will not defeat what is now the bin Laden-birthed, worldwide Islamic insurgency.

Special Forces: If you want to rescue a captive, kill one foe or a small group of the enemy, or direct airstrikes, these courageous and superbly trained men and women are who you call. They cannot win a war, however, because almost all of what they do — as in Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, and Iraq — leaves the strategic situation in each place and worldwide unchanged and still in Islamists’ favor. Each Special Forces victory is worth having and merits applause, but add them up and you find the strategic advantage lies firmly with IS and that the Special Forces have produced the chump change of war.

Air Power: That any American still raises the use of air power as an effective means of eradicating IS and AQ underscores how few mature and intelligent adults can be found in the United States. The air forces of the United States, NATO, and multiple, sort-of-allied Arab countries have been attacking the Islamist enemy for years, along, more recently, with those of Syria, Egypt, Iraq, and Russia, but the Islamist movement today is larger, better armed and more geographically dispersed than ever before. And this enemy, remember, has no reliable air cover of its own whatsoever. The multiple air forces that are bombing and strafing an enemy who cannot hurt them have not only not won, but have seen the strategic situation grow much worse. The air forces, in fact, have not produced as much chump change as the Special Forces.

Drones: Like Special Forces, drones are good for killing one foe, or several, and their supporters at a crack. All to the good, but so what? Again, drone attacks have increased with each passing year but have made no dent in the Islamists’ manpower growth or strategic advantage. Build more drones, kill a few more enemies, Islamist forces keep growing, and America still loses. Drones produce a widow’s mite of chump change.

Limited Numbers of Military Units: Mr. Rumsfeld’s “small footprint” blueprint was madness in 2001 and it is even madder today. Mr. Obama sends 250 troops to Niger, 300 to Cameroon, a half-a-hundred to Iraq and Syria, and the result is that American parents see their military children marooned in hostile foreign territory, like the U.S. cavalry in John Ford’s brilliant film trilogy. The use of a “small footprint” by a Great Power does nothing to terminate the enemy’s growth; indeed, a defeated Great Power — a title won by the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq — is a powerful recruitment tool for the Islamists, second only to the motivation provided by a half-century of U.S.-Western intervention in the Muslim world. The repeated and always losing use of the small-footprint formula also gives the foe tremendous confidence that the United States is led by feckless, moral cowards who are dangerous to no one but themselves and their nation. No chump change here, this approach is all loss.

Training Foreigners: Those advancing this idea are merchants of idiocy, cowardice, and America’s defeat. The U.S. military has proven beyond doubt’s fabled shadow that they cannot train Muslims who have no desire — indeed, they have an aversion — to fighting and dying for either Washington’s fundamentally pagan foreign-policy goals or, in the case of Iraqi and Syrian Sunnis, to regain the pleasure of being ruled by murderous Shia regimes. Yemenis, Afghans, Syrians, Iraqis, and Kurds, all have been trained thoroughly and expensively by U.S. forces and none of them have fought worth a lick. At their best, the U.S.-trained foreigners have proven to be a completely reliable and speedy medium for transferring massive quantities of modern U.S. arms and ordnance to the mujahideen. Overall, the U.S. military’s training of Muslim foreigners has increased the Islamists’ strategic advantage through their defection to AQ and IS as already trained fighters, by depleting the U.S. military budget, and by necessitating the reintroduction or retention of U.S. forces — as today in Iraq/Syria and Afghanistan — to prevent the collapse of U.S. trained-and-armed militaries and their governments. The training tack does not produce any chump change at all, it is all loss.

Covert Action: The U.S. intelligence services — like Special Forces, drones, small military footprints, and training foreign Muslims — cannot win wars and never claimed to be able to do so until the era of the Bill Clinton, G.W. Bush, and Barack Obama. In wartime, the CIA and its sister U.S. intelligence services were and are meant to gather and provide pertinent intelligence to the U.S. military, which it, in turn, uses it to annihilate the enemy, his supporters, and their infrastructure. CIA and the other services can also be used successfully but sparingly to kill an individual foe or small groups of the enemy, capture and then harshly interrogate prisoners, and destroy infrastructure targets, but such actions are nothing more than complements to main military force. Intelligence in wartime is useless if the U.S. military is not authorized to kill whatever number of the enemy and its supporters is necessary to make them quit, even if that number turns out to be all of each category. Intelligence accompanied by overwhelming and relatively indiscriminate military power is always a terrific money maker and leads to victory — ask the Confederate armies, American Indian tribes, the Wehrmacht, and Imperial Japan — but so far it has yielded only another widow’s mite.

Today, Americans can look back over a 20-year trail of smoldering wreckage formed by wasted trillions of taxpayer dollars, tens of thousands of dead, wounded, and maimed U.S. military personnel, and a national government seemingly enslaved to the same interventionist and minimalist war-making policies that have brought repeated defeat to the United States. Americans must begin to understand that the Islamist enemy is far more powerful, numerous, religious, worldwide, popular, better-armed, and wealthier than it was in 1996, although much of the U.S. and European media neither report nor comment on this reality and so Americans would need to check with foreign media outlets such as Al-Jazirah, and RT.

There are occasions when disaster simplifies decision making, and so badly is America being beaten by the Islamists that it really has only three possible decisions left to make:

• The first is to decide whether or not the growing Islamist movement is a threat the United States must definitively defeat to ensure its national security, or whether the cauldron of blood now viciously boiling in the Middle East, North Africa, South Asia, and parts of Africa — a violent pot that, incidentally, has claimed very few American lives since 2011 — can be left to boil itself out as it uses up the blood of most of the republic’s enemies.
• If that decision holds that the Islamists must be defeated by the U.S. military, we are already armed with the only decision that will suffice to attain that goal. Because Special Forces, air forces, drones, training foreigners, and covert action have together failed to do more than slow and annoy the Islamists, only a formal declaration of war by U.S. Congress and its re-institution of conscription to dramatically enlarge U.S. Marine Corps and Army can begin to provide even a slim chance of defeating the Islamists. These measures must be accompanied by presidential authorization of rules of engagement that will allow U.S. service personnel to be enthusiastic and wide-ranging killers, not the human targets they are today. The measures also must be supported by Americans recognizing and accepting that (a) an enormous and probably prolonged increase in taxes will be necessary to pay for the war, that (b) far greater numbers of their soldier-children will become casualties than the totals reached in the last two decades, that (c) civil liberties will be steadily curtailed; and that (d) there is no guarantee of victory.
• If, on the other hand, the decision is that the Islamists do not require decisive defeat by U.S. forces, we are, again, already armed with the only decision that will suffice to attain and secure genuine U.S. national-security interests. That decision is five-fold: (a) to stop intervening in the Muslim world, (b) to close and then control U.S. borders and evict all illegal aliens, (c) to declare and perpetually maintain neutrality as the core principle of the republic’s foreign policy, (d) to steadily rebuild U.S. military strength to ensure all other nations know that U.S. neutrality is not U.S. pacifism and that to attack genuine U.S. national interests is to incur swift and complete annihilation; and (e) to elect no one president in 2016 who has been connected to the foreign policy catastrophe America has endured since 1996, meaning only Mr. Trump, Ms. Fiorina, Dr. Carson, and Senator Paul ought to be viewed as acceptable candidates.

If Americans dismiss the clear lies of politicians and generals and are ready to decide what kind of commonsense foreign policy best defends the United States, the decision they need to make is certainly obvious and easy. It also is squarely in the America First tradition of the republic’s Founders.

So why is the U.S. military staying longer in Afghanistan to keep bleeding in a war that was lost long ago? Why is President Obama leaving behind a force whose story may turn out to be a reprise of an old western movie in which a valiant but tiny cavalry unit mans a fort surrounded by savage Indians and waits for reinforcements that do not come in time to rescue it? Why do we care what happens in Afghanistan after already losing the war, wasting the lives and limbs of several thousand U.S. Marines and soldiers, and expending a trillion wasted dollars, a goodly part of which cannot be accounted for?

The answer to each of these questions is that President Obama and his party (and apparently many Republicans and the Joint Chiefs of Staff) do not give a tinkers’ damn about the lives of our military personnel — in Afghanistan, Iraq, or the hospitals of the Veterans Administration — because most do not vote Democratic and because the Democrats will soon have in their thrall millions of illegal-immigrants made into illegal-voters by the Democratic criminals who govern California. The latter issue, and the 2nd Amendment’s role in it, is a story for another time, but there is an answer to Afghanistan and it goes as follows.

First, acknowledge that the Afghan war is irretrievably lost. The Joint Chiefs are now headed by a Marine general, Joseph F. Dunford, Jr., for whom truth, courage, regard for his troops’ lives, and frank manliness ought to be second nature, and who has been taught that the best generals know victory when they see it, but also know and admit when they are beaten and prefer to stop the waste that is the only product of reinforcing defeat. He should publicly say what he knows to be true and then resign his post.

Second, welcome and act to immediately exploit the tremendous opportunity to escape Afghanistan presented to the United States by Russian President Putin. Putin already has the Russian military positioned to further intervene in the Ukraine. He also has started what will be a long, costly, and losing war in Syria, a place that holds a potential threat to Russian security because of the thousands of Russian and CIS Muslims — up to 7,000 the Russian media claim — who are fighting there alongside the Islamic State. The real and immediate Islamist threat to Russia and the CIS states, however, is Afghanistan.

Third, recognize that the Afghan threat that Putin’s Russia now encounters is far more formidable than the one from Syria. Afghanistan has a long and relatively undefended border with Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan, and each of these Central Asian states — add Kyrgyzstan to the three noted — has a restive and increasingly militant Muslim population; all four also have contingents of their nationals fighting with the Islamic State in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. This is a problem in itself for Moscow, but Russia’s outlook is further darkened by the growing power of the Taliban in northern Afghanistan — note the recent battles in Kunduz — and the fact that much of the currently non-Taliban population of the northern region are ethnic Central Asians, many of whom fought as mujahideen against the Red Army in the Afghan-Soviet War (1979-1992) and still seek revenge on the Russians for their barbarity in that war.

Fourth, conclude that the Taliban’s growing strength in the north is bad enough for Russia, but that the arrival and quick numerical growth and geographic dispersal of Islamic State (IS) forces gives Moscow, the Central Asian regimes, and China a near-term and deeply unsettling nightmare. IS forces, of course, are in Afghanistan to try to displace the Taliban as the primary Sunni Islamist organization in the country and region. They also are there, however, to try to expand the IS’s caliphate into Iran, India, and Pakistan, but most especially into Central Asia and western China. This is a reality that Putin, the Central Asian leaders, and Beijing cannot ignore. They would have to fill the Afghan void created if the U.S. military presence and U.S. funding are terminated because neither the Kabul government nor its military are viable without substantial and prolonged foreign military protection and money.

Fifth, regard any U.S. politician, pundit, reverend, or academic who whines that a complete U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan would betray “our Afghan allies” as a person to be netted and packed off to an asylum. The Afghan regime will not fight, cannot govern, stole tens of billions of U.S. dollars, traffics in heroin, and is asking Russia for military and financial assistance. Clearly, the United States can only gain by losing this ally.

In their totality, these five factors demand a quick and complete termination of the U.S. military presence in and funding for Afghanistan. Such an action will get U.S. Marines and soldiers out of harm’s way, save the bankrupt U.S. Treasury from borrowing billions more from China to give to the thieves in Kabul, and, most important, leave Putin mired in expensive, lengthy, highly lethal, and losing interventions.

Unlike mindless, democracy-mongering U.S. interventionists, moreover, Putin must stay the course and try to win militarily in each theater because each poses a genuine national security threat to Russia; the strategically vital Crimea cannot be returned to the U.S.-EU-created, anti-Russia regime in Ukraine; the many thousands of Islamist fighters from Russia, the North Caucuses, and Central Asia now serving with IS in Syria/Iraq cannot be ignored until they return home as skilled and veteran mujahideen; and Central Asia cannot be allowed to be inundated by IS-led Islamists who will recruit numerous local fighters and civilian supporters and wage war against the four Central Asian regimes, none of which is much if any better than the Afghan regime in terms of governing capabilities and military prowess.

With the stroke of his fabled pen — and, for once, constitutionally — President Obama can turn over Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan to President Putin and let him supply the immense amounts of soon-to-be wasted money and blood that have heretofore been provided by U.S. taxpayers and their soldier-children. Putting this mess on Putin’s plate should keep Russia stuck and bleeding lives and resources for years and would intensify the Shia-Sunni war that is an unmerited godsend for the United States — and perhaps for Europe, if it can muster enough manliness to evict unarmed, unwanted, and social-cohesion destroying refugees.

The only effective U.S. strategy for Afghanistan, then, is to immediately and totally withdraw; stop berating Putin as he tries — but will fail — to defend Russia’s genuine national interests in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan; quietly rebuild the worn U.S. military for use in decisively closing the southern border; and silently observe and learn from Russia the immense costs involved in necessary and losing foreign interventions, while reflecting on the enormous human and monetary costs the U.S. governing elite has incurred with its always bipartisan, always unnecessary, and always losing overseas interventions.

Once again the vicious, amoral, and reality-free man Americans have elected twice to the presidency has rushed to the media to exploit the dead and wounded and their families in the Oregon college shooting. President Obama says that we ought to “politicize” the killings because “only voting” can bring guns under the national government’s full control. No surprise there, Obama, Hillary Clinton, Biden, Bloomberg, and their fellow infant-butchering associates want to install a one-party, minority-run, police state in America — though they will call it “effective central government” or some other dissembling term — and know they will have to disarm Americans to do so.

This will never, ever happen. Long before they can achieved their goal, America will be convulsed with its third bloody civil war. And who will be responsible for that war? Obama, the Clintons, and the racists — folks like Eric Holder — they have brought into the national government to destroy the nation’s liberty and history and to build a tyranny.

Obama and his party are the enemies of all Americans. They use and exploit Blacks, Hispanics, illegal immigrants, feminists, and other trifling, block-voting minorities to move their authoritarian agenda forward. None of them, however, will escape the oppression of the Democrats’ New American Order if their now-smiling, back-slapping, and free-stuff giving masters ever get full control of the martial whip.

The Democratic Party’s well-educated but surely doomed men and women have pushed Americans very nearly as far as they are willing to be pushed. How so?

• They have waged a war on Christianity for thirty years and the product of that ongoing war was the Christian-hating young man who killed the students in Oregon. The bullets that killed and wounded those people came from a gun owned by a young man who was taught to hate Christianity by Obama and his party. Americans ultimately will defend their faiths with their guns.
• They have filled the United States with illegal, unassimilable, and often violent immigrants who are draining the U.S. economy, destroying property, killing young women walking with their dads, trafficking narcotics and people, and dominating parts of our main cities with gangs whose barbarism, violence, and degeneracy are almost beyond imagining. Because the national government has not and will not rid the country of this criminal-filled wave of illegals, Americans ultimately will defend themselves with their guns and terminate the threat.
• They have awarded iron-clad legal preference, tax-payer funding, and protection from criticism via unconstitutional anti-hate-speech laws to any number of whining, self-serving minority groups — feminists, environmentalists, Hispanics, mindless university students, imprisoned criminals, Blacks, sexual deviants, abortionists, atheists, etc. They also have and will increase taxes on Americans to fund such groups, none of which does anything to maintain the nation’s social cohesion, strengthen its economy, or preserve equality before the law. Because of the national government’s championship of rule-by-minority, and the absurd rates at which it taxes Americans who actually work to help fund minority rule, Americans ultimately will defend themselves with their guns and terminate rule by the few, the sordid, and the racist.
• They have taught Americans youngsters for three decades and more to hate all life but their own by celebrating the murder of infants in the womb or their murder and dismembering on the operating table. The Democrats, feminists, and the AMA have surpassed Stalin’s kill total in their wanton and grotesque murder-for-profit of almost 60 million Americans. Hillary Clinton thunders about using executive power to “control guns” and “save lives” while spending enormous amounts of time and campaign funds to protect taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood, an organization that Herr Himmler and Dr. Mengele would have admired and exceedingly proud to lead. Americans ultimately will use their guns to extract an eye for an eye from those who delight in having doctors murder the unborn and who believe women are so special that they must have the “right” to kill other human beings whenever it suits their convenience or fancy.
• They have sucked for decades on Hollywood’s scurvy teat for campaign contributions and publicity, and in return their friends in the “entertainment” industry have been free to make movies, TV shows, and video games that stereotype Blacks and Hispanics as addicts, murderers, and libertines; make the United States the world’s largest producer of pornography; teach youngsters that American history is evil or should be ignored; and establish female role models for young women that make sluttish behavior, sex tapes, and pride in abortion the main symbols of equal rights for women. The Democrats’ wealthy Hollywood enablers also soak the country in obscene violence in every kind of media they touch — Hollywood, more than any other source, trains youngsters to mimic that young shooter in Oregon — and have driven American society into the status of a reeking sexual cesspool. There is no more dangerous threat to the survival of a decent and humane American society than that posed by the Democrat-Hollywood axis. The longer that axis works to inculcate degeneracy, perversion, and violence in American society, the more appropriate and needed an armed response will become.
• They have waged a campaign to limit the importance and influence of parents in the lives of their children and sought to assume that role for the national government. In power, the Democrats dictate what children should be taught; limit parents’ ability to discipline their children; dictate what children eat at school; seek to unteach what parents teach their children at home about religion, sexual matters and behavior, family, community, and patriotism; teach children that winning does not matter and that tolerance means passive acquiescence to every perversion and crack-pot theory — such as diversity — the national government wants to try out; and allow the publicly owned airwaves to carry programming meant to destroy the traditional family and replace it with various kinds of freak-show families that are portrayed as just another kind of normal. They have made the extraordinarily difficult job of raising children to be decent, hard-working, and autonomous adults almost impossible, and appear bent on making the coming generations of children passively obedient to whatever the national government decides is best for them. All of this is unwarranted domestic interventionism at its most savage, and the citizenry’s ultimate response certainly will be identical to those armed overseas responses that have resisted the U.S. government’s interventions in the name of installing women’s rights, democracy, and paganism.
• They have eradicated in most U.S. citizens still worthy of that title all remnants of respect and affection for their national government. Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson and many other Founders believed that a republican government would not survive if it did not maintain the citizenry’s affection. The Democrats, their slavish, mindless, and block-voting minority groups, Hollywood, and too many Republicans — read Neoconservatives — have never understood either how essential this affection is to the national government’s durability, or how very easy it is to lose, especially if equality before the law is abandoned. Obama’s legacy, in fact, will be that he knowingly drove the last bit of affection for the national government out of all Americans but his acolytes. And without an ample reserve of citizen affection the national government always stands on the brink of a well-earned and perhaps bloody disaster at the hands of a constitutionally armed citizenry.

The terms “turning point” or “sea change” are misused so often in these days that they have become nearly meaningless. But the effective negation of the 2nd Amendment via the use of the rank tyranny of executive power by either Obama or Hillary Clinton — if she can serve as president from jail — may just be the break point.

The Democrats and their allies have never recognized that it is perfectly possible for Americans to love their country and fiercely hate their national government. In large part their failure to perceive this fact lies in their ignorance or denigration of the hard-won lessons of American history. They seem not to know, for example, the Founders and many of their countrymen waged war against Britain to rid themselves of a specific, interventionist, and liberty-revoking British government, and to then restore the English liberties, limited and minimally intrusive central government, and local governance that does the bulk of governing which they knew to be their birthright.

After a long and bloody war, the Founders and those they led won back this English inheritance and left as a major part of their legacy for Americans the 2nd Amendment, which was written to ensure that no U.S. national government would be able to it to take away that inheritance without facing armed resistance. The use by Obama or any other president of executive power to neuter the 2nd Amendment would clearly put the issue of justifiable revolution on the national table. There is no way of knowing whether that cudgel would be picked up and used, but its best for all Americans to recall and take to heart the words of the English republican writer that the Founders most respected and took guidance from. “[O]ur ancestors,” John Milton wrote in February, 1651, “were willing to put anything into the king’s power rather than their arms and the garrisons of their towns; conceiving that that would be as if they went about to hand over their liberty to the unrestrained cruelty of their kings.”

Given that the national government long ago and unconstitutionally destroyed the 2nd Amendment’s guarantee of state militias — a good approximation of what Milton meant by “garrisons” — the American citizenry’s last defenses against the growing tyranny being imposed on them by the Democrats — and, to be fair, far too many Republicans — are (a) elections and (b) their own personal arms and whatever informal armed groups they can form and train.

It must of course be hoped that the ballot still can be used to definitively defeat the tyranny desired by Democratic leaders, and Obama in particular, though hope generally is a weak and nearly useless reed to lean on. But as long as Americans are well armed and desire to retain the liberties they have, and reacquire those the national government already has taken, the 2nd Amendment must not be neutered.

Quite simply, only a well-armed citizenry can install the mandatory caution, worry, and fear for their lives in the governing elite, men and women who seem to want other Americans not as equals and countrymen, but as laboratory animals on which they can conduct their social, medical, economic, educational, and multicultural experiments.

One has to be amazed at the number of chances to save itself that America keeps encountering and refusing to grasp and exploit in the Arab world. We were safely out of Iraq when Obama and the Republicans returned us to that hell hole created by Mr. Bush, Mr. Blair, and Israel First. We were safely and serenely sitting on the sidelines and happily watching the descent of the Muslim world into a massive sectarian war when Obama signed us up to fight on the side of both Saudi Arabia and Iran, thereby knowingly and deservedly earning the hatred of Sunnis and Shias. We were completely out of harm’s way from the migrant mess the effeminate Europeans are either too stupid or too cowardly to halt, and Obama, his party, and the Republicans have sent a half billion dollars of our taxes for the EU to waste while it commits suicide-by-migrant, and now want to bring 100,000 migrants into an already migrant-drowning and internally insecure America. Now, miraculously, another and perhaps last chance to save ourselves has fallen into our increasingly unworthy laps. As our enemies would say, “God is great!” Russian President Putin is moving military forces into Syria, and seems to have concluded a deal with Iran which will see Tehran occupy the Shia areas of Iraq once the nuclear deal cannot be undone. In addition, the media report that our European “allies” are moving in Putin’s direction, with chancellors, prime ministers, pundits, and politicians in Italy, France, Germany, Britain, and elsewhere claiming that the West needs to be more “realistic” and ally itself with Russia, Syria, and — implicitly — Iran to defeat the Islamic State. And, finally, Thursday’s FOX news brought word that Israel has signed up with Putin and his Arab and Persian sidekicks by setting up “a joint mechanism with the Russian military to coordinate their operations in Syria and avoid any accidental confrontations.”

In the space of the foregoing paragraph readers can see that, under Mr. Putin’s auspices, all of the following enemies of the United States will soon be killing each other in the Syria-Iraq theater: Russia, Syria, Lebanese Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, other Syrian Islamist groups, the Islamic State, Turkey, Iran, and Iraq. The killing will be applauded and temporarily supported by the EU’s taxpayer monies, aircraft, and an accommodation with Assad, while it simultaneously and desperately tries to stave off the need send any of Europe’s tiny — except for Turkey — and antiquated armies to the war. Israel’s deal with Russia — which implicitly approves Moscow’s military plans for Syria, as well as Iran’s in Iraq — is surprising because no matter how the approaching disaster ends, it will render terrible news for Israel’s security.

The Russian, Iranian, and EU intervention on Assad’s behalf will, of course, damage their already bankrupt economies, raise Shia-vs-Sunni tensions in Europe, and unite Russia’s Sunni mujahideen in the North Caucasus and motivate them to step up attacks. The intervention will also be another case of a Western — or, in Moscow’s case, perhaps semi-Western — led invasion of Muslim territory, and it will be seen by the Sunni world as an action meant to provide victory and territorial expansion to the hated Shia and Alawite heretics. Needless to say — save for those who govern Western states — this intervention will again validate all the Islamic State has said about the Crusaders’ hatred for and threat to the existence of Sunni Islam.

As is the case in each Western intervention in the Islamic world, a Russian-led intervention also will fast become the Islamic State’s most capable recruiter, and new fighters will flow in from across the Islamic world and/or they will stage attacks in their home countries. Because of Moscow’s clear intention to help Iran achieve primacy in the region, moreover, the Saudis, Emiratis, Kuwaitis, and other Arab tyrannies will continue publicly damning IS, while at the same time beginning to clandestinely send money and arms to IS, al-Qaeda, and any other organization willing to kill Shias and the Russians and Europeans who back them.

And the outcome of all of this will be the defeat of Russia and its allies and helpers, a victory for the Islamists that will ensure the accelerated growth of their worldwide movement, the likely consolidation of the IS caliphate in Syria and Iraq, and a massive increase in the flow of migrants to Europe. Why?

Well, first, in three recent wars against the Islamists — Afghanistan and two in Chechnya — the Russians have lost two and tied one, and the latter will cross over into the lost category once Moscow’s actions in Syria unite the mujahideen in North Caucasus and they undertake military activity in earnest.

Second, today’s Russians wage war much more mercilessly than the West, but these Russians are not Stalin’s boys. They ran out of determination, money, and patience in Afghanistan and gave up after racking-up high but not sufficient kill totals against both Afghan insurgents and civilians. In the first Chechen war they simply were beaten. To defeat the Islamists in Syria-Iraq, the Russian military will have to kill at least as well as the Red Army did to win its war against the Wehrmacht or as the United States Marine Corps did against the Japanese imperial forces. Indeed, the latter probably is the only method of military operation with a good chance of success in fighting the mujahideen. The Marines learned quickly that Japanese serviceman gave and expected no quarter. The Marines mastered that code of behavior and mercilessly killed as many Japanese fighting-to-the-death for the glory of their god-emperor as was required. And even with the Marine’s success, two Japanese cities were rightly incinerated to prompt Tokyo’s surrender and avoid what would have been for both sides a bloody invasion of Japan, an invasion with attendant fighting that would have killed far more Japanese — not least because of their eagerness to die for the emperor — than did the nuclear attacks.

Third, the Russians will discover the absolutely lethal handicap of going to war with contemporary European states as allies or supporters. Putin and his generals will find that none of the Europeans know that war involves killing or that fighting Islamist forces and winning means killing massive numbers of them and their active civilian supporters and silent abettors. It is not much different than fighting the Japanese Empire, in fact. But as soon as Russian and Iranian forces start to kill the enemy, the Europeans will start whining — as they did in the Afghan and Iraq wars — that too many people are dying, civilians are being killed, old ruins are being demolished, and the Russian military does not have adequate numbers of homosexuals, feminists, nifty transgender folks, and other such privileged minority groups in their ranks.

Poor old Putin will wish he had never heard of the Europeans, who are great to have as enemies because they are militarily weak, womanish, decadent, and feckless, but are terrible allies for exactly the same reasons. Putin, however, will have the last laugh. His intervention in Syria will create a wave of migrants that will dwarf the current wave and it will completely undo the EU and European leaders, men and women who have absolutely no idea of how to defend their nations and appear to doubt whether Europe is even worth defending.

So by sheer and unmerited good fortune, the United States has one last chance to pack up and voluntarily get out of the Arab world lock, stock, and barrel, before we are disgracefully driven out by the mujahideen. Safely back in North America, the bankrupt, authoritarian, incompetent, and lawless U.S. government can watch the exorbitant price of unnecessary overseas interventions and wars be paid for in the funds and soldier-children of other nations.

There is not much chance that the current bipartisan governing class will learn a lesson and act appropriately, but an observant American public will watch and recognize that from the beginning of the war in Syria to how and whenever it ends, the genuine national interests of the United States were never once at risk. They can then use that knowledge and vote for the most genuinely America First candidate they can identify in 2016.

The leaders and bureaucrats of the European Union (EU) are fortunate that they have largely disarmed the citizens of EU member states. If the citizens of Europe had personal weapons, all officials at all levels of the increasingly authoritarian EU organization might well be under fire — and rightly so — for causing the horde of unwanted, unneeded, and non-assimilable migrants that is now inundating Europe.

The migrants will produce further lawlessness, a debilitating level of societal tensions, enormous increases in the expense of social services and public housing, and contribute nothing worth having to the nations of the EU. The migrants also will wreck the status quo in EU security as the many hundreds of thousands of incomers are mixed with a goodly number ISIS and al-Qaeda organizers, recruiters, fighters, and suicide attackers who will make the job of EU security and intelligence services even more undoable. Indeed, the only upside of the migrant flood is that elected and appointed EU officials will feel proud of themselves for spending the money of the EU’s wildly overtaxed citizens for a “humanitarian purpose” that, to anyone with commonsense, clearly carries the seeds of terrorism, the end of the EU, fascism, and civil war.

EU leaders also should be deliriously happy that most of the region’s media are urging that Europe take in as many of the migrants as possible and are keeping their readers from asking why the migrants are flowing into Europe. Many European politicians and pundits are blaming Bashir al-Assad and the Syrian regime. The British finance minister George Osborne, for example, said last weekend that the world needs to focus on dealing with the migrant “problem at source, which is this evil Assad regime and the ISIL (Islamic State) terrorists, and you need a comprehensive plan for a more stable, peaceful Syria.” Mr. Osborne must be crazed.

And then there is the Pope Francis who wants to get all the migrants possible into Europe and wants Catholics to defy the law and put them up. The mindless, do-gooding interventionism of this Pope will not be sated until he helps to turn the EU into a gigantic Greece, and ensures the impoverishment of the rest of the Western world, while the Vatican’s art collection and property holdings remain intact.

The major and nearly only cause of the EU’s overwhelming influx of unwanted migrants is the relentless interventionism of the EU, NATO, and the United States in the Islamic world, and their refusal to win the wars they start there. Although such Western interventionism has been a constant since 1945, it has become the tool of first resort since the attacks of 9/11 and it is the direct and primary cause of the migrant tide now destabilizing the EU. From 1996 until this day, the four following realities lead in a direct, unambiguous, and causal line to the current migrant onslaught.

• The Islamist began to wage their religious war against the United States and its Western allies in 1996 because of what they saw as a half-century of reliable Western intervention — especially by the United States — on the side of Israel’s ambitions and the preservation of Arab world’s tyrants. Nearly 20 years later, the United States, NATO, and the EU continue their unnecessary and largely unwanted intervention in the Islamic world on behalf of both, fighting on the side of the Gulf tyrants in Iraq, Yemen, and Syria and supporting an increasingly authoritarian Egyptian government that seized power by military coup. In addition, Washington is publicly bragging about the higher-than-ever flow of U.S.-made arms to Israel, apparently to compensate it for an Iran deal that will not stop Tehran completing its nuclear weapon, but will greatly expand Sunni Muslim hatred toward the United States and the West.
• The U.S.-NATO invasion and 15-year occupation of Afghanistan that not only was militarily defeated by the Islamists, but which allowed al-Qaeda to proliferate around the world, facilitated the accelerating Arabization of Afghan and Pakistani Islam in the direction of Salifism and Wahhabism, nurtured a new generation of Sunni mujahideen, and strengthened the Muslim world’s confidence that Islamist fighters are more than a match for any opponent, given their defeat of first the Russian and then the U.S.-NATO militaries in Afghanistan.
• The unprovoked, unnecessary, and ultimately defeated U.S.-led military intervention and occupation of Iraq. This act of Western insanity destroyed the only reliably durable obstacle — Saddam Hussein and his regime — that blocked the westward expansion of the Islamist army that had been incubating in Afghanistan and Pakistan since the Soviet’s Afghan invasion in 1979. Saddam’s demise (a) opened an easily traveled, westward-heading highway for the Islamist to move from Pakistan’s tribal region to Morocco’s Atlantic coast; (b) removed a mujahideen-hating Sunni tyranny in Iraq, replaced it with an incompetent, Sunni-persecuting Shia tyranny, and along the way created the environment that allowed birth, development, and expansion of the Islamic State (IS); (c) yielded the Islamists’ second defeat of the U.S. superpower; and (d) ultimately created the Islamist forces that attacked Assad’s regime and caused the Syrian-Islamist war which has provided the first batch of migrants is now pouring into Europe.
• The final direct cause of the EU’s migrant disaster is the destruction of the Qaddafi regime in Libya, and that action is the sole responsibility of David Cameron, Nicholas Sarkozy, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama. The U.S.-NATO military annihilation of the Libyan regime gave the mujahideen more ordnance than ever before; a large reinforcement of veteran and skilled jihadis; laid open all of North Africa, Egypt, and the Sahel region to the Islamists’ exploitation; gave IS a place to territorially expand and so add to the credibility of its caliphate; and provided nearly 5,100 miles of coastline from which people-smugglers, IS, and al-Qaeda can dispatch a mass of migrants salted with Islamist fighters to the EU.

There, Mr. Osborne and Pope Francis, and not in a tinpot tyrant like Assad, are the self-inflicted causes of Europe’s migrant mess, and they are more than enough reason for you, all EU leaders, the Western media, and U.S. presidents and legislators to feel awfully lucky not to be swinging from tall oaks. The people of the United States and the EU are being bankrupted, having their soldier-children killed; and finding themselves becoming strangers in their own lands solely because of the arrogant, always losing, unconstitutional (at least in the United States), and democracy-mongering military interventions of their leaders. There is no credible evidence that any factor other than the foregoing caused the migrant tide.

But what will be the West’s answer to solving the migrant problem that its military interventionism has caused, and from which it is now slowly dying economically, militarily, demographically, and culturally? Mr. Osborne deceitfully said it all when he claimed that the problem had to be solved at its “source” in Syria, which means the West can solve the problem created by its military interventionism only by launching another military intervention in Syria. Such an action would, of course, end in yet another U.S.-NATO military defeat, the triumph of the Islamists, and an even larger wave of migration to Europe. Mr. Osborne and those who agree with him are quite simply mad.

At this point in time there seems only one agency by which EU and U.S. leaders can be stopped from destroying the West by their military interventionism in the Muslim world. Elections have proven to make no difference. One Western government or administration replaces another and the interventionism continues, the numbers of dead and maimed Western military and security personnel mount, the bankruptcy of national budgets deepen, and the hordes of unwanted, unneeded, and non-assimilable migrants destroy traditional society, free speech, and the societal bonds that can only be forged by a common language and history.

EU and U.S. leaders have forgotten — perhaps they never learned — that the West’s only obligation is to itself, its preservation, and its posterity. It has no obligation to commit suicide in an effort crafted and supported by the academy’s nation-killing, diversifying, and multicultural charlatans, their enablers in the media, and the likes of such authoritarian leaders as Obama, Cameron, Hillary Clinton, and Hollande.

Because Western elections now seem unable to kill the deadly plague of interventionism, it might well be time for EU and U.S. citizens to recall that they pay the politicians who are leading their societies to destruction without popular consent; that it is the citizens who own the government and its military tools; and that it is the citizens who have temporarily delegated to their leaders the power they are abusing, and have the right and duty take it back. Citizens are under no obligation to behave submissively, as if government owns them, and they have every right to seek alternate means of changing matters to their liking if the ballot box is no longer effectual and disaster impends.

A relatively unknown but important founder of the American republic precisely outlined the citizens’ obligation to loyally obey leaders who abide by the law and work for the public good, as well as their equally important obligation to resist them when they do not. “For, please to observe,” the Protestant divine Jonathan Mayhew wrote in 1750,

“that if the end of all civil government be the good of society, if this be the thing aimed at in constituting civil rulers, and if the motive and argument for submission to government be taken from the apparent usefulness of civil authority, it follows that when no such good end can be answered by submission there remains no argument or motive to enforce it; and if instead of this good end’s being brought about by submission, a contrary end is brought about and the ruin and misery of society effected by it, here is a plain and positive reason against submission in all such cases should they ever happen. And therefore, in such cases a regard to the public welfare ought to make us withhold from our rulers that obedience and subjection which it would, otherwise, be our duty to render them. … For a nation thus abused to arise unanimously and to resist their prince, even to the dethroning him, is not criminal, but a reasonable way of vindicating their liberties and just rights; it is making use of the means, and the only means which God has put in their power for mutual and self-defense. And it would be highly criminal in them not to make use of the means.”

As politicians allow migrants to destabilize the EU and illegal Hispanic immigrants are permitted do the same to the United States, and as EU and U.S. leaders plan yet another military intervention in the Islamic world, Rev. Mayhew’s words ought to be given serious consideration by those among the citizenry of both who are interested in the survival of their nation, culture, free speech, and liberty.

In the meantime, EU leaders ought, for a change, give some thought to Europe’s survival and station their member-states’ navies along the coast of North Africa and order them to forcibly return refugee-filled boats to the shore, even as they direct the EU bureaucracy to prepare the migrants’ return to their home states.