Wars Don’t “End”: They are Won, or Lost

In light of Obama’s recent statement that the war must end, I just wanted to point that out.  Wars don’t end, they are won, or lost.  And if you want to know the difference then think of it like this:  if you aren’t winning, then you are losing.  Anyone want to argue that we are winning the war against that ideology which launched an attack on us on 9/11?

Obama is abdicating his responsibility for the safety of the United States.  He wants to pretend the war is over so that he can move on to other things.  His bet is that nothing particularly nasty will happen between now and January 20th, 2017.  He may be right about that – the Islamists are likely to be busy in Libya, Egypt and Syria for the next few years and while they will seek to launch attacks on us, their primary goal will be to consolidate their control over those Muslim nations.  But the war goes on – we may want it to end, but they don’t want it to, and in war it only takes one to tango.

Unless we fight them they will not be stopped – and the longer we refuse to fight them, the stronger they will get and the more bloody and difficult the eventual war will be.  Like the leaders of Britain in 1938, Obama had a choice between war and shame – he choose shame.  He’ll get war, too.  Though the really terrible part of the war may not come as long as Obama is in office.  But come it will – the Islamists are certain they are on the wave of victory and that they will conquer the entirety of Western Civilization.  You might think it foolish.  It might well even be extremely foolish – but it is no more foolish than Hitler thinking he could conquer the world.  It doesn’t matter if its foolish – if the fools think it can be done, they will try it.  And, right now, the fools very much think it can be done…and we’re doing nothing to convince them otherwise.  Indeed, we’re encouraging them – by Obama’s actions – to think that they’ve got it made.


35 thoughts on “Wars Don’t “End”: They are Won, or Lost

  1. neocon01 May 31, 2013 / 7:57 am

    Though the really terrible part of the war may not come as long as Obama is in office. But come it will – the Islamists are certain they are on the wave of victory and that they will conquer the entirety of Western Civilization.

    with the money, tanks, missiles, jet fighters WE gave them, while we are disarming.
    a truly dangerous man in a dangerous time.

  2. Bob1 May 31, 2013 / 9:36 am

    Why should the Islamists be all discouraged by anything that Obama is doing, because they know that he is one of them?

  3. Norma Stitz May 31, 2013 / 10:28 am

    Mr. Noonan

    I agree wholeheartedly that we MUST continue the fight against Islam, but I respectfully disagree with the notion that wars – especially wars of ideology – do not “just end.”

    The Protestant Reformation heralded centuries of the most brutal warfare seen in Europe. While each of those wars had a victor and a loser, the overall war eventually ended. There are no such battles anymore, Even if one looks at a recent Protestant/Catholic conflict like in Northern Ireland, that was more of an Independence movement against England that also happened to fall into Protestant and Catholic sides. That fight would have happened even if England were Catholic.

    Even the Crusades when for a couple centuries, included six or seven or so major wars, and eventually petered out to the conditions on the ground being almost exactly as they were before the conflicts began.

    Wars – especially ideological wars – do “just end”

    • M. Noonan May 31, 2013 / 1:41 pm


      Well, the Crusades were lost, by the West. Had they been won, we wouldn’t be worrying about Islamism because Islam would be dead. And the Crusades were lost primarily because the West couldn’t face up to the fact that taking Jerusalem wasn’t a decisive victory – only a march on Damascus followed by a march on Mecca would have successfully ended the Crusades (though it is possible that even just the conquest of Damascus would have put Islam on the road to extinction).

      As for the so-called “Religious Wars” following the Reformation – depends on where you were. Protestantism won in north Germany, Scandanavia and England; Catholicism won in southern Germany, Bohemia, Poland and France. There was no will on either side to march on to conquer the other side in its entirety – and this mostly because for a good century and a half after Luther, the fundamental desire of most people on both sides (though this sentiment was stronger on the Catholic side) was that Christian unity would be restored (and, indeed, that is still the hope of most Christians, once again much stronger on the Catholic side). The various wars between Protestant and Catholic States following the “Religious Wars” might have been tinged with theological arguments, but that wasn’t the real motivating factor…by, say, 1650, when England would fight Spain, they’d shout about religion, but they were fighting about power and trade…and those wars also ended in victory or defeat; not by mere “ending”.

      Islam is the permanent challenge to the West – a Christian heresy invented by Mohammed who’s main theological difference with Christianity was a denial of the divinity of Christ. Lots of heresies have arisen over the past 2,000 years over this very issue – because it is difficult to comprehend that God would empty himself of his glory and become man. But there is also no denying the sublime moral teachings of Christ…and so lots of people have worked out theologies which accept all or part of that, but deny the fundamental thing, Christ’s divinity and his role as Savior. Mohammed worked out a very simple theology for simple people and spread it by force and precept. But Islam cannot live in a world where anything non-Islamic can affect it. We must go down or it will go down – and even if we don’t realize it, the leaders of Islam do.

      • Norma Stitz May 31, 2013 / 2:20 pm

        When the last Crusade ended, things were pretty much as they were before the Crusades. Land ownership was, by and large, unchanged by both sides.

        True, the West lost in that their goal of holding the Holy Land would be Chrstian. But the ideological fight between Islam and Christ was unchanged, it contiinues to this day.

        As to the turmoil of the Reformation, stating a particular country’s final official faith only points to the indivdual wars won or lost. But the ideological war ended, with not vctor. In this case, both faiths coexist, peacefully.

        My point is that ideological wars end, or continue, regardless of the actual wars fought.

      • ricorun May 31, 2013 / 7:25 pm

        Norma: My point is that ideological wars end, or continue, regardless of the actual wars fought.

        That’s an excellent point.

      • rustybrown2012 May 31, 2013 / 7:49 pm

        Mark, seriously, what would you have Obama do? You state he’s “refusing” to fight, yet the war in Afghanistan continues and we are still lobbing missiles at terrorists there and in other countries. What would you do?

      • M. Noonan May 31, 2013 / 9:11 pm

        I advocate fighting as need and opportunity allows. Take Syria, for instance – no, I don’t want to get mixed up in that civil war, but while Syria is engaged in that civil war it was a perfect opportunity for us to strip Lebanon permanently out of Syria’s grasp…and perhaps to partition the nation in to Christian and Muslim halves so that (a) the Christians wouldn’t be routinely brutalized by Muslims and (b) we’d gain a second, staunch ally in the area to go along with Israel – a permanent loss of Muslim power could be arranged…and once that was done, given what is going on in Syria, we could have opportunistically gathered some fruits from there, as parts of southern Syria are heavily Christian and might wish to become part of a Christian, Lebanese State.

        But Obama doesn’t do that – he’s of the absurd opinion that Islam, itself, isn’t a challenge…that its some, small segment of Islam which poses the problem and all we need do is get rid of the tiny, radicalized part. The truth is that all of Islam is permanently radicalized to a greater or lesser degree and will turn on us whenever the time seems right. And right now the most radical elements in Islam are on the march to victory within the Islamic world – even Turkey and Tunisia are on the cusp of becoming radicalized, Islamist States at war with the West.

        Our long term goal is to permanent destruction of Islam’s ability to antagonize the West – all our efforts must be directed towards that end. We should be seeking to separate out the Christian enclaves (especially those in Lebanon, Egypt and Iraq). We should be seeking to find alternative sources of oil so that not only us, but the entire West becomes free from buying Muslim oil (and this works in two tracks – either finding our own sources, or seizing theirs). We must cut off Muslim immigration to the West – it has been found that it is continual reinforcements from the Muslim world which leads to radicalization of Western Muslims…so, for at least a period of 20-30 years, we shouldn’t be allowing any more Muslims in…over time, the Muslims within the West will become more like everyone else in the West (long-term Muslim residents of the West – those who are on 3rd or 4th generation are pretty much indistinguishable from everyone else here). We should be breaking off or at least greatly minimizing diplomatic relations with the Muslim States – all too often such diplomats merely become another conduit whereby Islamist radicalism seeps in. We should get our people out of Muslim lands as far as possible – providing fewer targets for them to attack, and less entanglement if we feel the need to strike at any particular Muslim power. Eventually, it might come to a stand up fight where we are impelled to invade Islam and subjugate it entirely – but we might not have to if we follow a path of armed refusal to allow them to attack us in any way, shape or form.

        The one, sure path to our defeat is to go along thinking that its only a tiny segment of Islam which is the problem and/or that our forbearance will lead to peace – in other words, Obama’s policy is tailor made to ensure not only continued war, but our eventual defeat.

      • tiredoflibbs June 1, 2013 / 10:37 am

        come on neo, get with the program!
        You do know that with the inauguration of 0bAMATEUR, the ocean levels were lowered, the planet was healed, our nation had respect throughout the world, peace in the Middle East, the economy recovered, unemployment was lowered, yadda yadda yadda……

        ….. if we invade or meddle in the Middle East (Egypt and Libya don’t count, we were deposing some really bad people) then we revert from peace to inflamed tensions.

        Remember, 0bAMATEUR received the Nobel Peace Prize. It had to be for something right?

  4. seniorwoman May 31, 2013 / 10:46 am

    The war on terrorism will never be won. We might have had a chance, but Obama refused to even say “terrorist”. Look at the last 5 years and the proliferation of terrorist groups. All b/c of a foreign policy steeped in naivety.

    • neocon01 May 31, 2013 / 3:48 pm

      of a foreign policy steeped in naivety.
      I believe this regime knows exactly what it is doing and is right on schedule for the destruction of Israel and the USA

  5. J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) May 31, 2013 / 10:48 am

    Wars – especially ideological wars – do “just end”

    That may well be, Norma, but the last one you note ended almost 600 years ago. The current Islamic Jihad will not end any time soon, regardless of whether or not we actively oppose it. Now we may well ignore it, and just be content to suffer an occasional act of terrorism like the Boston Marathon bombing, but our death will be one of 1,000 cuts.

    • Norma Stitz May 31, 2013 / 2:24 pm

      The Crusades is an example of an ideological war that continues today despite the actual wars ending 600 years ago. The Reformation is the exampe of ideological wars ending regardless of the actual wars. The piint is the actual wars did not impact the idological wars.

    • rightlane1 June 1, 2013 / 3:36 pm

      “The one, sure path to our defeat is to go along thinking that its only a tiny segment of Islam which is the problem and/or that our forbearance will lead to peace – in other words, Obama’s policy is tailor made to ensure not only continued war, but our eventual defeat.” I advocate fighting as need and opportunity allows. Mark Noonan

      The outcome of this war of ideology won’t necessarily be determined by the intent of any one administration’s policy. It takes a while to cut someone 1000 times and we can cut back! Some, myself included, would argue that when your enemies are killing one another is a time to lay back and enjoy the show. This war between the West and Islam will continue for some time, far beyond the end of Obama’s presidency, so his actions or inactions can be turn to advantage by future administrations. Timing really is everything, so for now, we should bolster the side that’s losing and let them cut themselves!

  6. neocon01 May 31, 2013 / 12:15 pm

    the crusades was a war against radical islam that was not actually won.

  7. Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) May 31, 2013 / 2:38 pm

    I understand what you’ve written but as this is devolving into semantics, perhaps Dr. Krauthammer stated it a little better;

    “That’’s what history advises: Two sides to fight it, two to end it. By surrender (World War II), by armistice (Korea and Vietnam), or when the enemy simply disappears from the field (the Cold War).

    • ricorun May 31, 2013 / 7:40 pm

      So where in Dr. Krauthamer’s semantics does the fact that the “war on terror” was the first in US history to be declared on a non-state entity?

      • neocon01 June 1, 2013 / 8:49 am


        islam is a cult and a form of government run by this cult. ANY muslim country is part of the war they have declared on us.

      • ricorun June 2, 2013 / 4:21 pm

        I’m glad you’re not in a position of power, Neo.

    • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) May 31, 2013 / 8:11 pm

      Even though I said it would be a cold day in hell before I’d respond to ricorun, in the spirit of civil discourse I will respond this time.

      The “first declared on a non-state entity” is factually inaccurate although a favorite red-herring of the left.

      Neither the Civil War, which was fought between the United States and forces in rebellion which included outside forces representing interests of foreign countries, nor the Cold War, in which participants changed sides based not on national sovereignty but on ideological interests (see: Poland under Communist rule and Poland under Lech Walesa) were specifically declared against a Nation or Nation State. Both of those were covered by Dr. Krauthammer’s “semantics”, by which I assume you mean the qualifier from the doctor’s article.

      THAT, is all I have to say on the subject.

      • ricorun June 2, 2013 / 4:20 pm

        No, I didn’t mean that. Here’s the difference, Beancounter: most of the countries, and/or territories within those countries, in which we engage in activities related to the current “war on terror”, are supposed to be our allies. And that’s a big difference. Actually, it’s a HUGE difference. But you’re right, at least as far as it goes, even that’s not entirely new; arguably the best analog to the present situation is the Barbary wars. But, obviously, that’s not a perfect analog either.

        While we’re at it, on the topic of a “cold day in hell before I’d respond to ricorun”… what, exactly, are you (and Spook, and perhaps various others) afraid of? Seriously, am I THAT formidable?

  8. neocon01 May 31, 2013 / 3:46 pm

    Sir W.C.
    “We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France,
    we shall fight on the seas and oceans,
    we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be,
    we shall fight on the beaches,
    we shall fight on the landing grounds,
    we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,
    we shall fight in the hills;
    we shall never surrender, ”


    • neocon01 May 31, 2013 / 3:52 pm

      Is this place hell on earth or what?? (not the pitchfork)
      CHICAGOLAND: Head Of Anti-Violence Group Arrested For Attacking Wife…
      is there ANYTHING good about this city and it’s inhabitants?

  9. The Return of Rathaven May 31, 2013 / 7:48 pm

    And in today’s Guess That Party We have this from the Post and Courier

    South Carolina Sen. Robert Ford resignation letter issued.

    On Thursday, Ford began the fight for his political career when he faced allegations that he spent campaign funds on personal expenses, including purchases at adult stores.

    I’m sure by “adult stores they mean stores that carry Brussels sprouts and other yukkie stuff that adults eat. I’d quit too if someone accused me of buying yukkie Brussels sprouts.

    Answer to today’s question; the article doesn’t say, but his website identifies him as a (D).

    Thanks for playing.

    • neocon01 June 1, 2013 / 8:50 am


      just a couple of obama supporters, nothing to see here move on.

    • neocon01 June 1, 2013 / 9:00 am

      And in today’s Guess That Party

      Gun Violence Rocks Chicago as 8 are Shot in One Day

      • neocon01 June 1, 2013 / 9:07 am

        Again, the Muslim radicals won.

        The bottom line is that Obama has consistently supported the most radical Muslim elements in the Middle East.

        But we never supported the young people of the democratic Green Revolution against the vicious mullah regime in Iran. When Obama first met Benyamin Netanyahu he acted like an abusive bully.

        Obama only bows down to Third World reactionaries.

        That is consistent with his extreme leftist ideology. It also fits the worldwide left-Muslim alliance that has made Israel and the U.S. the targets of the most vicious hate campaign since World War II. Check MEMRI.org if you doubt it.

        Obama may not be committing technical treason.

        But he is a revolutionary, and so are all his friends.

        For people like him, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The war theology of Islam is therefore his friend.

        Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/06/dangerous_times_benghazi_revealed_collusion_with_al_qaida.html#ixzz2UyAfQbie

      • neocon01 June 1, 2013 / 10:29 am

        LOVE THIS

        ” Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al: We have stuck together since the late 1950’s for the sake of the kids, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has clearly run its course.

        Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right for us all, so let’s just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.

        Here is a our separation agreement:

        –Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a similar portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.

        –We don’t like redistributive taxes so you can keep them.

        –You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU. –Since you hate guns and war, we’ll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military.

        –We’ll take the nasty, smelly oil industry and the coal mines, and you can go with wind, solar and biodiesel.

        –You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O’Donnell. You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them.

        –We’ll keep capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street.

        –You can have your beloved lifelong welfare dwellers, food stamps, homeless, homeboys, hippies, druggies and illegal aliens.

        –We’ll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO’s and rednecks.

        –We’ll keep Bill O’Reilly, and Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood .

        –You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we’ll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us.

        –You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we’ll help provide them security.

        –We’ll keep our Judeo-Christian values.

        –You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism, political correctness and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U.N. but we will no longer be paying the bill.

        –We’ll keep the SUV’s, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Volt and Lea f you can find.

        –You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors.

        –We’ll keep “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” and “The National Anthem.”

        –I’m sure you’ll be happy to substitute “Imagine”, “I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing”, “Kum Ba Ya” or “We Are the World”.

        –We’ll practice trickle-down economics and you can continue to give trickle up poverty your best shot.

        –Since it often so offends you, we’ll keep our history, our name and our flag.

        Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like-minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I’ll bet you might think about which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.


        John J. Wall

        Law Student and an American

        P.S. Also, please take Ted Turner, Sean Penn, Martin & Charlie Sheen, Barbara Streisand, & ( Hanoi ) Jane Fonda with you.


        P.S.S. And you won’t have to press 1 for English when you call our country.

    • ricorun June 2, 2013 / 6:50 pm

      Perhaps Sen. Robert Ford was shopping for adult dehydrated Brussels sprouts, or hiking boots, or something. Either way, given the recent developments in Mark Sanford’s career, Ford’s political future looks bright. Lol!

  10. Amazona June 1, 2013 / 11:32 am

    I see that this charming (//sarc off) new blog format doesn’t allow posting on older threads, so this, which really belongs in the Liberalism thread, will just have to go here.

    From Jonah Goldberg’s column in National Review, his Obscure Quote of the Week:

    ” Let us suppose that instead of being slow, extravagant, inefficient, wasteful, unadaptive, stupid, and at least by tendency corrupt, the State changes its character entirely and becomes infinitely wise, good, disinterested, efficient, so that anyone may run to it with any little two-penny problem and have it solved for him at once in the wisest and best way possible. Suppose the state close-herds the individual so far as to forestall every conceivable weakness, incompetence; suppose it confiscates all his energy and resources and employs them much more advantageously all around than he can employ them if left to himself. My question still remains — what sort of person is the individual likely to become under those circumstances?”

    This is, by the way, a question that should be seriously considered, because it sums up one of the objections to nanny-statism.

    While the Left is extolling the superior morality and practicality of having the State take care of people on every level, while they are supporting the reassignment of Other People’s Money by what they seem to consider a supremely moral and intelligent and honorable State (as long as it is a Dem administration anyway) because it “levels the playing field” and provides a “safety net” and so on, they never stop to consider the end result of this pampering and coddling.

    The premise underlying heavy taxation is that the State is better qualified to decide how OPM should be spent than the person who earned the money in the first place. The State is supposed to step in and, due to its vastly greater knowledge and experience and general wonderfulness make sure that this money is not spent in the “wrong” way. So suppose it confiscates all his energy and resources and employs them much more advantageously all around than he can employ them if left to himself as the Left believes would be the case—– what sort of person is the individual likely to become under those circumstances ?

    Remember, the person being coddled and protected and having his decisions made for him has already grown up getting trophies for just showing up, getting stars on his homework just for turning it in, being told that in his games there are no winners so there are no losers, being praised to the heavens for his “specialness” without ever having to be special in any way, and being passed from one grade to another just because it might damage his self esteem to be held back until he actually learns something,

    This is the delicate flower that is then handed off to the State for lifelong nurturing, without the requirement to participate in his own future. He is supposed to belong to a union (preferably while working for the government) where there is no accountability for his poor performance, where he gets paid no matter what, in a nation which makes all the decisions about his health care, what kind of car he should drive, what kind of toilet he can flush, what kind of light bulb he can use, and if the Left gets its way what kind of house he can live in, but which also feeds him and keeps telling him there is no reason to think he has any responsibility for himself.

    • ricorun June 2, 2013 / 6:56 pm

      Ama: “I see that this charming (//sarc off) new blog format doesn’t allow posting on older threads, so this, which really belongs in the Liberalism thread, will just have to go here.”

      Hey, that’s no fair! At the very least Jonah Goldberg’s quotes should be allowed to die an honorable death. Come on, Ama, don’t prolong the misery!

      • ricorun June 2, 2013 / 7:00 pm

        Hmm… it appears this new format comes with different posting protocols.

  11. neocon01 June 2, 2013 / 12:03 pm


    sounds like soviet union, N.Korea, RED china, cuba etc etc….you know the countries that place barbed wire, mine fields, machine gun bunkers to keep their “citizens” IN!!

Comments are closed.