Peace

Understanding War and Peace

Mark Noonan15 Comments

I think I see the problem some are having with Trump’s Iran negotiations. I’m not talking about the lunatics on the Left, nor the pathetic Never Trumpers, worn out Neo-Cons and assorted grifters. No: I’m talking about those who want victory and fear Trump is throwing it away. Here we go:

They neither understand what constitutes victory, nor understand why we lost all of the post-WWII wars.

The first part is easier: most people, on the whole, don’t understand military or foreign affairs (this is especially true among senior military and State Department personnel, until Trump II). Lacking such knowledge, they feel that there should be an abject surrender ala Reims or Tokyo Bay. Gotta tell ya: these are not usual. In fact, they’re nearly unique. Of course, total war is nearly unique…the world approached it in WWI and went overboard on it in WWII, but such is not the norm. Usually the enemy quits before all resources are exhausted – that is, the leadership weighs things and figures that continued fighting is more costly than peace, and so peace is made.

In my view, the demand for unconditional surrender was a gigantic strategic and moral mistake. The Germans and Japanese were already determined enough to fight hard; that demand just fused their peoples into a determined mass willing to fight to the last man. Had we offered a way out, the voices of ceasefire would have been able to rise to the top. We should have offered peace to a non-Nazi Germany on basis of her 1938 borders. Peace to a Japan willing to surrender all post-1932 conquests. Heck, we should have worked Germany to overthrow the Hitler regime and place Rupprecht of Bavaria on a new German throne (thoroughly Royal, despised the Nazis, wanted to curb Prussian militarism – just perfect, actually). The demand for unconditional surrender probably extended the war at least a year longer than otherwise…with untold millions being killed as a result. Plus half of Europe in Soviet hands with no major Continental Power able to stand athwart Stalin’s ambitions. It is not a good idea to totally destroy your enemy…you might need him as a friend. Often very soon. Look how quickly we actually needed a powerful Germany after 1945. Japan, too. Didn’t have them, so we had to take the whole burden upon ourselves.

So much for the easy part – that is, people just not knowing that you can win a war and leave your enemy alive. Now, to the second part: why did we lose all those wars?

Quite simple: we held back the full application of our power against an enemy who was supported by outside powers we deemed off limits to retaliation. It is really nothing more than that. Or do you really think some Korean and Vietnamese peasants could do what the Waffen SS and Japanese soldiers failed to do? Sorry, no: they didn’t beat us in a stand up fight. They didn’t, in fact, beat us at all. We beat ourselves. Failure to apply power. Failure to take the steps necessary to victory. Allowing the conflicts to drag on for years, causing dismay among the American population. What we have done since 1945 is set ourselves up for defeat. Rather insane. Stupid, too. And you do wonder if we had people in our government deliberately setting this up? That’s for a later time. Suffice it to say that if we allowed our enemies to script our moves, it could not have ever come out worse.

Until Trump.

Trump is not a man of war. He takes a businessman’s view of it. That is, its bad for business. Why shoot when you can work a deal beneficial to both sides? This sort of view can get you into some trouble (it fails to take in to consideration the simple passions which war can cause), but on the whole it is the best way to go about it…because war is a business. A nasty one, to be sure. As the old saying goes, amateurs talk strategy, professionals talk logistics. Business, that is. Not the glorious charge or the clever flanking move…but how can I get this many troops there by this day? How long can I supply them? How large are the enemy’s supplies? Who can produce more supplies over time? These are the questions which real generals ponder. And Trump seems to instinctively know this – and so his plan, when he put it in motion, was two fold: hammer the leadership in hopes of an uprising and hammer Iran’s economy so that even if there wasn’t an uprising, whoever was in charge would have to come to the table. We haven’t engaged in that sort of warfare since 1945. There was no uprising…but Iran’s economy is in shambles. They came to the table because if they couldn’t start selling as much oil as the market can bear, there would be an uprising because the Iranian people are running out of food.

Iran also has no outside power willing to bankroll them. Russia and China are friendly, but neither want to tangle with us over Iran. Plus we just demonstrated that Russian and Chinese military hardware is worthless on the battlefield against us. Just as they had to after the first Gulf War, they are now pausing to rethink their whole strategic worldview. They are once again unsure they can actually fight us – so, time to lay low. A year ago the Chinese might have been thinking they could send a naval task force to contest our control of the Arabian Gulf…but not today. All they’d be doing is providing excellent naval scrap. Without a patron, without the ability to endlessly kill Americans, with their economy on the verge of collapse…they really had to come to the table.

Can we trust them? Of course not! But peace doesn’t require trust. No more than alliance does. It requires shared interests. Right now, Iran has a vested interest in a calm middle east. A time for it to recover a bit. Build a bit. Reconsider strategic choices. Argue amongst themselves who gets to be in charge. We, too, need a calm middle east and an Iran no longer sabre rattling all over the Middle East. We need time for the peace efforts to really take hold and encompass the entire region. This is why Trump was so mad at Israel for bombing terrorists in Lebanon: for very small returns – killing a few more terrorists – Israel nearly upset the apple cart. Hey, I get it: Israel would like all her enemies dead. But Israel, herself, refused to do this in Gaza. For the most decent and humane reasons, to be sure, but it totally undercuts bloodthirsty demands about Iran…as well Hezbollah creeps in Lebanon (who probably haven’t been paid in months given Iran’s troubles). Both sides need peace – and so we’re going to try to make it. And even if the Mullah regime survives, that isn’t a defeat. It is, in fact, a victory – because Iran’s whole thing has been to disturb the peace.

If You Want Peace With Islam, Then be a Crusader

Mark Noonan44 Comments

It is said that only Nixon could go to China. That is, nobody but an ardent anti-Communist could talk peace with Communists. There is some truth to this. Not that talking with China worked out all that well, but the basic concept is correct. For there to be peace there has to be reality – we can’t live in a world of illusions. Anyone else trying to break the ice with the Chi-coms would have been immediately tagged as a sell out. That Nixon did it gave us some assurance that there was reality behind the move. So, too, with Islam – only a Crusader can befriend the Saracen.

I put up a comment on X pointing out that part of the reason for the Church’s soft touch with Islam is the plain fact that anything provocative would lead to bloodshed. Specifically, the blood of innocent and defenseless Christians in the Muslim world. This touched off a firestorm of criticism. I was torched for a whole day! In fact, there are still people dropping by to call me a coward, an Islamist stooge, a traitor, an apostate and so on. I do note, though, with great care that all of those calling for a Crusade against Islam are very unlikely to actually join the effort…that those who want bloodcurdling Papal statements about Islam won’t actually pay the price for same.

Now, to be sure, I do believe the Church should take a far stronger stance against Islamist oppression of Christians. A lot stronger. But what I was trying to do there is put myself in Papal shoes…and in Papal ears. I’ll bet big money that the Christian leaders of the Muslim world are always urging a soft stance. Great issues of the day aside, these people are trying to shepherd very small flocks through very large wolf packs. They don’t want a very difficult task made even harder. People are almost incapable of nuance here in 2026 and so I was flamed on it.

I want the stronger stance not to provoke violence, but to get the Muslims to the table – to be the Crusader who earns the respect of the Saracen, and so can make peace with him. Sorta like Trump is doing. Part of the reason the Muslim world was diddling over Iran was lack of trust in our determination. Why provoke Iran at the behest of the Yanks if they’re going to cut out on you when it gets rough? Trump has shown he has the will to get the job done regardless how much people whine about it. And, so, now we’re seeing real efforts at peace with Israel among Muslim nations and a growing determination to see an end to the Mullah regime. They know they can trust Trump. The President has shown he has the courage of Richard the Lionheart. So, too, I think the Church should become – a bit of Urban II is called for.

I think the Church leaders should issue a firm statement – not just calling for more dialogue, but calling for Christian emancipation in the Muslim world. No more second class citizenship. No more routine denial of Christian rights. No more death penalties based on Sharia law that Christians are not in any way bound to obey. Certainly the statement must also say that Christians in Muslim countries must show deep respect for their Muslim neighbors and not needlessly provoke them…but it must be a two way street, and it must be the foundation of a true dialogue between Islam and the West. We can’t talk sensibly if we’re not talking as equals in all things. We can do this. And we must do this. War and death might seem the easy way out – and getting a pound of flesh after decades of outrages might seem satisfying. But it isn’t the way. A peace between equals who respect each other is what we must have.

And we can see signs of its possibility. The King of Jordan is a decent man. So, too, the King of Morocco. The UAE is a land of decent, honest people. Perfect? Not by a long shot. But people we can work with. And signposts to a better relationship between Islam and the West. I’m not saying we’re going to love each other. I’m not saying we won’t find conflict. But I am saying that we can live in peace. In this, what Trump is doing is crucial – because the Mullah regime is the cancer in the Muslim world. The entity which inflames all hatreds and makes peace impossible. If he can destroy it – or even just degrade it significantly – we will have a window of opportunity. A chance to build so much peace and reconciliation that the purveyors of hatred and death will become a small minority, shoved into a corner, shouting at itself.