Murder, rape, torture, assault and robbery are crimes. They are crimes all of the time, everywhere and regardless of circumstances. No person can pretend that any authority has granted them the power to do any of these things. They are wrong, as such – and anyone who does these things should be seriously punished, up to and including death in certain circumstances.
Why point this out? Because there is no justification for crime. But we have a bit of a debate going on right now – an accusation that Secretary of Defense committed a war crime. The accusation, of itself, appears to me to be false: that is, he didn’t do what he’s accused of doing. That is, order a second hit on a drug boat with the intent of killing survivors of the first hit. What has got me going here, however, is the assertion that if he gave such order, it amounts to a crime. It doesn’t. Not a crime, as such and, so, not a war crime.
In war, you fire until the enemy is destroyed. That’s it. Failure to do this means that the enemy may be able to fire on you, destroying you. Sure, in bizarre circumstances you’ll be able to take an enemy alive but in combat it goes on until one side runs up the white flag – that is, the leadership of the defeated side surrenders not himself, but the whole force under his command. The drug runners are invading the United States to sell poison to our people. They are enemies. They are armed. They are upon the high seas. We don’t have to give a warning. We don’t have to give a break. Indeed, the more ruthlessly we apply force the more likely it is that the enemy runs out of the means to invade.
And, of course, this whole thing will end the moment the druggies surrender. That is, stop trying to smuggle poison into the USA. This is not a big ask. We’re not asking them to give up anything on their side. They can remain free, alive and able to pursue whatever honest trade appeals to them. All we’re saying is that if you’re trying to invade us with poison, you’re going to die whenever we can get you.
The real problem here is that many of us – including many on the Right – have internalized a Leftwing lie about the United States: that is, we commit war crimes. That we are even capable of committing war crimes. That American soldiers would lend themselves to such a monstrosity. It all started to brew early in the Cold War, specifically during the Korean War when the Communist world started to accuse our soldiers of all manner of war crimes. To this day, Leftwing voices around the world assert these crimes happened even though they didn’t. It was, of course, just a means to an end – to make the American military odious and so cover up the crimes of the Communists. “Look at that American bastard!” was the shout…by a Soviet Red Army which massacred Poles at Katyn and pretty much raped every German woman they could get their hands on in 1945. “See the American crimes!” shouted the Chinese Communists who were at the start of 70 million political murders.
The real gift to the Left here was My Lai – the quite horrible massacre by US troops of hundreds of Vietnamese. Of course, a bit of context is good here: this was in the immediate aftermath of Tet and our Army had suffered a lot of losses including from supposed civilians who revealed themselves as enemies only by the act of killing Americans. Also should be pointed out that it took place just a couple weeks after the Battle of Hue where the Communists had murdered more than ten times the number killed at My Lai…without anyone winning a Pulitizer Prize for covering it. Because it was hardly covered at all in the Western press. Didn’t fit the Narrative. My Lai did – savage Americans!
The reality of My Lai is that a unit of the American army, under gigantic stress from severe combat, went off its head and murdered hundreds. But this wasn’t US policy. A company commander gave harsh yet vague orders to his troops which some of them – not all – interpreted as a license to do evil. The policy of the US government was to go soft on Vietnamese civilians in an effort to win them over to our side. That the carrying out of this policy was, at times, downright stupid is neither here nor there – the crucial aspect is that our Army wasn’t in Vietnam to conquer, murder, rape, loot and torture. The desired goal was an independent and free Vietnam. In this is the crucial difference and what makes My Lai – a horrid crime – not a war crime.
Meanwhile, as noted, over in Hue – just 75 miles away from My Lai (you could drive it in a couple hours) – the Communists murdered as many as 6,000 people (the most commonly stated death toll is just around 4,000 but strong evidence indicates it goes to 6,000). The victims were anyone perceived as being favorable to the South Vietnamese government and/or the USA. They were rounded up, bound, tortured and murdered. Some were beaten to death. Some were buried alive. This was not done by a small section of the Communist force in defiance of policy – it was done as a carefully crafted policy. The Communists had developed lists of people to murder prior to taking over Hue. Had they remained in control of Hue for a longer time, more would have been murdered. What happened at Hue was a war crime. There’s no other way to interpret it.
But it is we Americans are the bad guys! Our whole Army was evil because of one company commander….but the NVA was just peachy even though they murdered vastly more. Keep in mind that what happened in Hue was just Communist policy writ large…all throughout the war the Communists were murdering noncombatants (as well as looting and raping women) as a matter of policy. And after the war they just put that practice on steroids. The Boat People didn’t happen for no reason. A million people fled Vietnam for their lives. 200,000 of them died trying. You don’t get into a leaky, wooden boat and set out into the high seas over mild policy disagreements…you do that because you’ll be dead if you don’t.
In my view – and I defy anyone to refute me on this – a war crime can only be the systematic application of criminal means for national policy ends. That is, it has to be policy. Now, this policy can be overt (written orders and such) or implied – but it has to be a policy. A pattern of behavior. A clear desire for a certain outcome. A soldier who murders a man is a murderer. A unit that massacres one village and then proceeds on to the next for a massacre is a war crime. This is not a difficult distinction to make but it seems impossible for many. I can only say this is because they don’t think it through and, also, they’re afraid that if they don’t mindlessly repeat the Narrative then people will get mad at them (lies always require a massive amount of cowardice to succeed).
The reason it must be my definition is because if you say that any crime committed by any military personnel during war is a war crime then you are indicting the entire military organization. To say My Lai was a war crime is to accuse the United States Army of being no different than the Waffen-SS. It is simply unjust to do that unless you have proof that the military organism is a criminal organization…as we found regarding the Waffen-SS. Our people doing evil isn’t inherent to our military system. And keep in mind that My Lai came to public notice because American soldiers made sure it did. And while the punishments meted out for My Lai do not fit the scale of the crimes, there was punishment and acknowledgement that it happened and it was wrong…and orders were issued to work against any possibility of a repeat. The NVA commander at Hue was given a medal.
The main point for us to make here is that we have to stop following the Leftist Narrative here – it isn’t designed to stop crime, but to hamstring the USA. The reason we have JAG lawyers second-guessing our combat troops is because we listened to Leftists when they accused our boys of being war criminals. Really gotta stop that.
War is cruelty and you can’t refine it. The purpose is to kill. To do this, you have to take men – and these days, women – who are not by nature violent and turn them into killers. Not murderers, but killers. People who will fire on a panicked and routed enemy, gunning them down as they flee in terror until the order to ceasefire is given or the enemy commander runs up the white flag. It has to be this way because that is how you win battles.
War is also a thing of massive stress. Those who encounter combat are forever changed. And it is no surprise that especially after long and arduous combat duty, some people break. And that breakdown can be permanent or temporary and it could cause suicide, or murder. The real lesson here is to avoid war – but if it is considered a necessity and we send our people out to kill, then we have a duty to care for them, to be merciful to them, to try and bind up their wounds physical and mental. You don’t go calling them war criminals because they went off their heads. You might have to punish them. You might even have to punish them quite severely. But you still try to understand what they went through – because you told them to go through it. You, too, bear moral responsibility…you weren’t down in the mud and blood and you didn’t pull the trigger of that soldier who murdered that civilian, but you still played your part in making it happen. You aren’t innocent. So, have a little care here before you cast judgement. Don’t award yourself a Morality Medal because you condemned a poor slob who went wrong under the stress of war.
Like any people, Americans can do wrong things. It is part of human nature. But it has never been the policy of any American government to be criminal. That is, to use criminal means to obtain national policy ends – and especially criminal national policy ends. This is why I say Americans don’t commit war crimes. It isn’t in us. We’re not like that. We might be wrong – and even at times quite fabulously wrong – but we do wish for the good of everyone. Peace for all. Prosperity for all. Freedom for all. We raise armies to defend these things and we at times send those armies to war. And, at times, some of our soldiers fall short of the standards we set for them. That is tragic – but it isn’t a war crime.
Blogs For Victory 
I’m reading a book which has an interesting chapter in which a protagonist is doing research and finds this:
“The author listed the defining characteristics of extremists:
(1) They identify themselves in relation to who their enemies are;
(2) They use a double standard, wanting to be accepted without question but refusing to do the same with others; and
(3) They emphasize emotional responses instead of reasoning and logic.”
The book is supposedly fiction but is clearly based on reality.
Your post reminds me of another book, Word of Honor, by Nelson DeMille, who served in Vietnam as an infantry Lieutenant. The story is about a My Lai type massacre during the Tet offensive, only the company commander is not called to account until some 15 years later. Published in 1985, it was also made into a TV movie in 2003. Excellent story.
The complete destruction of NY City has begun …
New York City‘s incoming socialist mayor Zohran Mamdani has appointed an anti-cop advocate to his team who has called to end policing and abolish the presidency.
Sociologist Alex Vitale, author of ‘The End of Policing’, a 2017 book that argued for the abolition of almost all police activity in the US, was added to Mamdani’s team last week.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15341733/Mamdani-Alex-Vitale-police-community-safety-transition-team-NYC-mayor.html
But it’s OK because he’s not a Republican
And don’t ever go visit the UK … they are lost people. A Brit was just arrested for posting as picture of himself holding a rifle in …. FLORIDA. The UK police were worried about how those pictures would make others “feel”. The feminization of the UK is complete …
IT consultant, 50, is arrested for a LinkedIn post of himself posing with a shotgun during holiday in Florida
I’ve been an Anglophile my whole life, starting with my love of British literature going back to when I learned to read. My admiration for the British was fueled by their courage and competence in WW II and Churchill is still a hero to me. My late husband and I used to spend a few weeks every year in the UK and I always said if I were going to live in a city it would have to be London.
So it is heartbreaking, and somewhat incomprehensible, to see this once-proud civilization disintegrate into spineless, braindead, mush. The Armada could not conquer England. The Luftwaffe tried and failed. But the International Left gutted her and left her at the mercy of Islam.
Muslims are fucking dirt bag human beings. Yea I know “there’s good Muslims out there” blah blah blah, but that’s why God made the world so big … so we can stay the fuck away from them. Honor Killing???? That’s only what weak ass, piece of shit men do …,.
Teenage girl ‘tied up and drowned in swamp in honor killing had upset her father by refusing to wear Islamic headscarf and using social media’
David Horowitz had an anecdote he used to cite in his speeches. He said that at every speech some well-dressed, articulate, attractive Muslim woman would stand up and chide him for his stereotyping of Islam and Muslims, claiming that Muslims are peaceful, kind, blah blah blah. He would politely listen and then ask her if she would answer a question honestly. She would always say “yes” and the question was something like: “Do you agree with _______ when he says he wants all Jews to return to Israel so they can be killed without having to hunt them down all around the world?”
And every time, though sometimes with some hesitation, the answer was “yes”.
As for “honor killings” they identify males (who can’t really be called “men”) as impotent savages whose “honor” is linked to having several of them gang up on women and subject them to horrible deaths for threatening their shaky and insubstantial claims of manhood.
Islam is a brutal and savage political model with a thin veneer of the pretense of religion, appealing to the morally weak and sexually insecure.
It is their view that if you dishonor the woman, you dishonor the nation the woman comes from – as Indian agitation against British rule started to rise in the aftermath of WWI, one of the things the Indian rebels did was assault an elderly British school teacher in Amritsar…even though she was completely non-offensive and, indeed, her life’s work was to educate Indian children (and credit to the Indians who rescued her from the mob before she could be killed). But you still have to think about the mental process here:
We don’t like British rule!
I agree! What should we do? Fight the armed enemy?
Naw: let’s go beat up that old schoolmarm who teaches our children to read!
I mean, seriously, what the heck? You can see why the British administration massively overreacted…because if they hadn’t, it would have become open season not just on the British schoolmarm, but on anyone who was (a) favorable to Britain and (b) defenseless. But such it is among uncivilized peoples…they are easily swayed to violence, especially when it is violence against the weak. I’ve pointed out this sort of thing before in relation to the old European colonial empires, but it must be kept in mind that the British Indian Army – far larger than the British army – stayed loyal to its salt. It only started to break away from its British officers post-WWII when it was clear the Brits were clearing out and so each part of the Indian Army had to decide where their loyalties were going to lay. Even after the massacre in Amritsar (quite horrible: hundreds dead as the British – grossly overreacting – shot into a large crowd of protesting Indians), that army remained loyal.
That tells you something – those closest to the British, who worked with them day in and day out and who had absorbed the most of British civilization weren’t having any of the nationalist agitation. That is, they could see through it – that it was irresponsible political grandstanding and that the end of British rule was going to be an acute crisis (and it was, millions were killed in the aftermath of Indian independence as the various groups went at each other’s throats).
What this all tells me is that while we can deal with everyone fairly and honestly, we have to accept the reality that some people are not civilized and are not suited to be within our nation. We have to be selective. And Trump posting the Immigration act on X the other day – which explicitly says the President can exclude certain classes of immigrants on any grounds desired – shows that he knows where this is going. The barbarians are going to have to go back; they can’t live among us because they don’t know how to.
I’ve caught some Michael Knowles podcasts, or parts of them, mostly his work with Ted Cruz on “Verdict” but never thought of him in terms of his religion. This article has me planning to sign up for his podcasts, and you other Catholics, if not familiar with him, might check him out.
As the article indicates, Knowles was at one time an atheist. It is common for people who are brought up in a religious environment to have questions about their faith, especially as teenagers. College has a way of inflaming those thoughts to the point where religion not only goes by the wayside but is viewed in an antagonist way. Many of those people will continue in their aimless wandering. Other who seek genuine truth and can exhibit some level of logic & discern are able to find their way back to a religious value that understands, God exist. Those who push beyond mere acceptance of God and dig deep often gain an ability to strongly articulate their beliefs and share them with any who listen. Knowles is that kind of person.
The clip in there of the lady pretending to be a Catholic priest is pretty important – because I’ll bet a huge number really don’t know the Church doesn’t ordain women. Next Sunday is December 7th and I’ll bet that when I go into work on the 6th and asked the youngsters I work with “what is tomorrow?” none of them will be able to answer. The level of induced ignorance in our society is massive and it is all very deliberate…it was designed, among other things, to get a so-called Catholic university to claim that DEI is a biblical requirement. It is a stupid lie – but nobody knows enough to actually dispute it.
I find it troubling and wonder, under what authority does she claim her ordination in the Catholic priesthood. There are unfortunately, many clergy within the church who advocate for women in the priesthood and at the very least, female deacons. As far as I know, Pope Leo has not condemned this action or spoke out in a clear voice that this is an unattainable position.
Secondly, some might view her stated positions as Christian and worthwhile, but in reality, they are wholly inconsistent with truth and instead aligns with leftist ideology. What she advocates is for a nation without rules, rules designed to protect both the citizens of that nation as well as the many who suffer under the godless rule of the mob.
She is just a acting out a different iteration of “if you think you are ______ then you are”.
In her case she is doubling down, not only just identifying as a priest but as one who speaks for the Church even while defying its teachings.
The Left is like a form of termite. It identifies structures it wants to destroy and then works to undermine the foundations of each of them, chewing away at what gives them strength and stability. So we see them nibbling away at what threatens them, hoping to weaken and then topple each of these structures of our society. Education, the Constitution, the rule of law, the nuclear family, religion—-all of these represent barriers to total control by the Left, so they are all subject to the efforts of the Left to incrementally destabilize them.
It is interesting to see the pushback on the religious front, as people are not only turning to religion but to the more formal, structured and demanding forms. Michael Knowles, for example, did not just move from atheism to religion, he moved to the most structured Christian religion, and then he sought out the old-form Catholicism of the Latin Mass and old catechism that goes with it.
Now that our military has been redefined, and the discipline that it demands, young people are flocking to the services to join.
Parents are starting to push back against the message that schools are the primary authority over their children, once that message became too blatant to ignore, and this is the reason the Left fights so strenuously against school choice and home schooling—they need the control that the educational system gives them to undermine not just patriotism or the family unit but the core elements of education itself, teaching things that are simply not true. The old pillars of rigid objective knowledge, such as mathematics and biology, are now so riddled with Leftist falsehoods that they can’t be counted on to provide stability.
I can’t think of a single element of our society that has not been under attack from the Left.
Just saw a great quote from Ayn Rand
”The difference between a Welfare State and a Totalitarian State is a matter of time”
Brilliant.
There was a point in my life, during my “youth,” when asked who I wanted to be when I grew up, I replied John Galt. I read Atlas Shrugged either as a senior in high school or a freshman in college, can’t remember for sure. I read it again about 10 years ago. The mindset of government bureaucrats didn’t change during those 50 some years. Ayn Rand was precient.
Completely off topic but the Midwest is experiencing a bit of reverse global warming so far this winter; temperatures across the great plains and and Midwest 15-25 degrees below normal, and in northeast Indiana we’ve already exceeded all of last winter’s snowfall.
We’ve already experienced our 4th snow storm of the year, something we rarely see until late December or into January.
“In today’s hastily assembled roundup: Pentagon replaces aging press corps with dynamic team of new reporters, which vexes corporate media to the breaking point“
Corporate media reacted with all the dignity of a piñata at a toddler’s birthday party — but without the piñata’s integrity. A mass exodus of corporate media types rage-quit, shredding their Pentagon press badges in synchronized unison, to teach President Trump a lesson. Fine! We just won’t cover you at all then!
https://substack.com/home/post/p-180606066
Another great line from Jeff Childers:
If true, this article gives a little more insight related to the recent shooting of the 2 National Guards in DC. It’s hard to understand how to best handle many situations without first obtaining background details and context.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/jeff-charles/2025/12/03/national-guard-shooter-could-have-been-blackmailed-by-the-taliban-n2667302?utm_source=thdailypm&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&bcid=52ce413f6fb58c7873c6b911b92d704d389047e1deec5d09abd903754eeb0b1f&lctg=26664402
I sometimes wonder why nearly every Democrat seems beholden to the far-left idiocy, especially given that, for anyone willing to look at the big picture, their demise will be no different than that of the mass lemmings hysterically running off the cliff. This article may explain at least in part why – fear of retaliation.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/jeff-charles/2025/12/03/trump-pardons-henry-cuellar-n2667308?utm_source=thdailypm&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&bcid=52ce413f6fb58c7873c6b911b92d704d389047e1deec5d09abd903754eeb0b1f&lctg=26664402
For any Democrats willing to listen, now is likely the most beneficial time to jump ship and save some level of dignity. For whatever Trump policies you might disagree with, breaking with the far left now will not put you in the DOJ crosshairs like the previous administration. If enough members move away from what will eventually be certain destruction, then just maybe we can become a far more prosperous country, one that you can be a part of. This likely doesn’t pertain to the newer crop of brain-dead loud mouths, but the more seasoned politician. For those who choose to stay on the left, remember, it’s those brain-dead loud mouths that you’ll be beholden to. Good luck with that.
I always wonder why no one ever asks the obvious question of those Dems who appear to be relatively more sane and grounded in reality. That is, “Why are you a Democrat?”
You would think that would be an obvious question. Ask most Republicans why they are Republicans and you will probably get a pretty coherent answer, along the lines of believing in a Constitutional form of governance. Ask a Democrat why he or she is a Democrat and you will probably get some version of gibberish circling back to how awful Trump is.
It seems to me that an election cycle in which every Democrat candidate is asked why he or she is a Democrat would be very interesting. And followup questions could focus on specifics: Do you support keeping most power with the states or with the people, or consolidating it in a Central Authority? What do you think we should do about people violating federal laws? If an elected official takes an oath of office to uphold the law and then violates that oath by overlooking violations of the law, should that official be removed from office? If you disagree with the federal laws regarding illegal residence in the United States, what have you done as a legislator to change those laws? Should laws be applied equally to all? Or should some people be allowed to break the law?
I’m thinking of the people interviewed at “protests” who can’t answer a single question about why they are there. I think direct attacks on Identity Politics, making fun of people who base their “politics” on personalities or emotion, would be effective. Call them out. Ridicule the utter stupidity of protesting things that don’t even exist because they are represented by people they don’t like.