One of the prime reasons Ronald Reagan easily defeated Jimmy Carter in the 1980 election is that he represented a drastic departure from the “hide and cower” brand of foreign policy favored by the terrorist-coddling peanut farmer. It was no coincidence that the Iranian hostages that had long been held out of Carter’s reach were released the very day Reagan was inaugurated.
Simply put: those who held our fellow Americans captive for 444 days understood that the jig was up; this new cowboy in the office wasn’t going to play nice.
Though we are an incredibly advanced nation in many ways, we can learn something from dedicated Afghan fighters who have demonstrated that they are willing to do whatever it takes to win. In retaliation for ISIS beheading four of their men, Afghan militia fighters have beheaded four captured ISIS fighters.
One of the reasons Donald Trump’s message has resonated so deeply with many Americans is that for the past seven years, our national agenda and foreign policies were helmed by a political eunuch who has viewed advancing political sensitivities as far more important policy goals than securing Americans interests and decimating global terrorism.
Trump incurred the wrath of the sensitive soy latte-drinkers when he recently announced that the best way to deal with terrorism is to “take out” the families of the terrorists.
On Fox & Friends earlier this month, Trump blasted the “politically correct” war that is not doing enough to combat ISIS. Though he encountered significant pushback from hosts, Trump stuck to his position that we needed to “bomb the hell out of [ISIS]” and when confronted about questions concerning civilian casualties, Trump noted that ISIS fighters are using their families as “human shields” and that we must be willing to “take out” the families to win.
“But we’re fighting a very politically correct war,” Trump stated. “And the other thing is with the terrorists, you have to take out their families. When you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don’t kid yourself. But they say they don’t care about their lives. You have to take out their families.”
That is not pretty, but that is war.
In the eastern border province of Nangarhar in Afghanistan, ISIS fighters have encountered firefights with Afghan militia. During an engagement on Saturday, four militia fighters were captured and beheaded by the savage terrorist group.
Afghan fighters retaliated by beheading four of the five captured ISIS fighters in their possession and placed their severed heads on the main road through Achin.
This is hardly civil and should hold no place in a civilized conflict… However, it seems increasingly clear that the jihad waged by ISIS is no civilized conflict. It is a bloody brawl and the rules of this war are established by the aggressors.
In short: if we are to survive against the onslaughts of these barbarous savages, we cannot stand above the fray and conduct ourselves in keeping with our modern concepts of civility.
It should be noted that when we, ourselves, were a rag-tag coalition of militias and minutemen, the British found our guerrilla tactics unseemly and barbarous. They refused to adapt and stoop to the level of our fighting styles, opting for the more “dignified” methods of fighting a war.
So, it begs the question: how did that principled stand work out for the British?