Enemies of the United States

This Marine’s thoughts on war, military, and our

Enemy.

It is time we accept the fact there are foreign

enemies of the United States of America who are highly

determined and able to harm the American system and

kill U.S. citizens. We must do what it takes to stop them.

The war in Afghanistan is now in its 10th+ year as I am

writing, already lasting twice as long as WWII when we

helped defeat the Italian, German, and the Japanese

empires. Why is it taking so long to end our involvement

in Afghanistan? I am a Marine but not a war fighting

expert and I have not been in combat but I call things as

I see them. The mission is flawed in my opinion. I saw a

Frontline special in October, 2009 showing what was

happening on the ground in June, 2009 in Helmand

province. I was amazed and shocked the 20 year old

Marine’s mission had morphed into trying to convince

locals they were there to help them. The Marine was also

asking them to help defeat the Taliban and convince

them it was safe in the area. The locals said “you have

tanks, guns, helicopters, etc. and we do not even have a

sword so what can we do?”

I thought this to be profound not only in the

response but in the entire situation regarding placing that

kind of responsibility on a 20 year old Marine. He is not

a diplomat. He is a rifleman, sworn and trained to protect

the United States and the Constitution by killing the

enemy. Diplomacy is for the diplomats. The people in

Afghanistan have been living their tribal ways for a

thousand years and they are not going to change simply

because we are there. They are not going to respect and

follow a centralized government they never see in a far

away capital city. They just do not think that way and

will not anytime soon. Does this justify a permanent

presence there until they get with our idea of how to live

their lives? I don’t think so. These Afghans are being

told how to live their lives by an out of touch Afghan

government and a foreign military presence which keeps

them in a permanent state of nervousness. They probably

feel much like we U.S. Citizens today being told how we

should live our lives by our government. Our

government that tells us what kind of car we should be

driving, how our healthcare should be managed, what

kind and how much energy we should use, what kind of

food we should eat and on and on. We do not like it and

I do not think the Afghans do either. I think it is time to

leave them alone to figure out how to run their own

country and start worrying about our own again.

Now on the other side, I need to speak as a former

member of the military and give my opinion of what this

citizen believes should have happened in Afghanistan.

First of all Afghanistan is a country which harbored

terrorists and terrorist groups that unleashed and

succeeded in a plot which killed 3,000 people on

American soil. They caused billions in dollars damage to

our economy. They attacked the head of our military, the

Pentagon. They attacked our financial center and

destroyed forever an American icon; the Twin Towers of

the World Trade Center and an icon which stood in one

of our nation’s and one of the world’s greatest cities;

New York City. This was the largest and costliest attack

to ever have been executed against the United States of

America. This was an act of war and should be treated as

such. This justified going after them. We should have

gone into Afghanistan and killed them. That should have

been and should now be the only mission. Quick, hard,

and fast should have been the tactic to fight this war.

Nation building, trust of the locals, stable government;

these things are good long term goals but they should be

the internal goals of the Afghans, not ours.

If the Afghans are not ready to change to a

democratic system, they will not just because we think it

best for them. Hunting down and killing the enemy is the

goal. It is simple, straightforward and most of all it is a

mission those in the military are ready to execute on a

moments notice and give their lives for. It is this U.S.

Citizen’s opinion that it is not worth the life of a single

Marine or any soldier to see to it a mud hut street

market is open so locals can trade vegetables. Is that a

goal really worth risking a serviceman’s life to achieve?

Does the fact we go into a country who harbors the

enemy or terrorist in order to kill them mean we owe

said country a Marshall Plan to take them from the Stone

Age to the Modern Age? I’m sorry but NO!

We, the United States should focus directly on

killing the enemy. War is hell and people die especially

when they bring it upon themselves. Innocents will die

when they are in close proximity to our enemy and is a

reason why wars should end as soon as possible.

Sometimes innocent people die but that is part of the

price you pay in war when you attack the United States

or any other free society. We may not get all the enemy

but we will get many of them. Then we leave and go

home, mission accomplished and to hell with what

others say about it. As time goes by we monitor the area

and we keep people there on the ground and in the area

learning, watching, and listening for the enemy and

when we see the enemy rise again or reform, we attack

again and kill them. We let them know constantly we

will be back on a moments notice if we see them again.

This mission is an offensive mission instead of the

defensive mission of staying too long and becoming a

permanent target. Some think once we take an area and

clean it of the enemy we must hold it. Why? To prevent

them from taking it back? So what, let them come back.

At least we know where they are then and then we attack

them again and kill even more of them. Am I getting my

point across here? Eventually they will get the idea the

United States means business and it probably is risky to

one’s life if they continue in their ways. It gives them the

choice: keep fighting and die, or stop and live a life.

Either choice means it ends quickly which is good for

America.

War should not be a choice based on party politics.

If attacked we have the right and duty to end the attack

and stop it from happening again. Another thing that

seems to have arisen lately is the notion of a measured

response. To my understanding this is retaliation only

using similar force which was used against you. What

sense does this stupidity make? How is this expected to

end a situation? Also in Feb. 2010 rules of

engagement have changed for our soldiers in that they

cannot return fire unless they can actually see a weapon.

What do politicians think just whizzed by a

Serviceman’s head making that distinctive crack as a

round goes by, a spitball? Again this is a moronic way to

fight a war. This is not fighting a war; this is trying to

manage a war and its political problems. If you doubt

me, read Sun Tzu.

If someone has a knife and you have a gun, you do

not put your gun away thereby risking losing a knife

fight and your life do you? No, you tell the other party to

put down the knife and if they do not and they come at

you, you take action with the gun putting an end to the

threat, permanently.

So my war fighting and military philosophy is pretty

straightforward in having a strong, ready military to take

care of threats quickly and come home. That’s it. That is

the “This U.S. Citizen” Doctrine on war. Is this not a reasonable

policy which will end the enemy threat as quickly as

possible and risk as few American lives and innocents as

possible? If the rest of the world knows this to be our

policy will it not deter those who want to harm us?

Regarding the rights of the enemy.

Finally let me make on additional point regarding

giving constitutional rights to the enemy. I am

specifically referring to not only the Gitmo prisoners

who may be tried in U.S. courts but the most recent

enemy terrorist captured on Christmas day, 2009. This

person is a Nigerian. He is not a United States Citizen.

Rights of United States Citizens are just that. He is the

enemy, NOT a common criminal. What he did was to

attempt to commit an act of war against the United

States of America and it citizenry. Those who give this

enemy the rights of U.S. citizens and a trial by a jury of

his peers are absolute fools as to the understanding of

our country, our customs, our culture, our Constitution

and our right to eliminate those who threaten our

existence. This enemy attempted to destroy the property

of and slaughter citizens of the United States for

fanatical and ideological reasoning.

Although his plot failed, it was a failure on his part

due to blind luck. His act was equivalent to lining up 300

U.S. citizens including men, women, and children during

wartime, putting a pistol to each of their foreheads and

pulling the trigger with the intended expectation he was

about to blow their brain through the back of their head.

The only thing which stopped it was a misfire. Sorry

about the graphic description of my example but what is

the difference in this and plunging 300 people which

could have been you or me or any of our family

members in a crashing fireball, probably killing even

more victims on the ground?

These people are our enemy and should be treated as

the Germans were in WWII when they attempted to

enter the United States as saboteurs. They were found

guilty by military tribunal and six went to the electric chair.

I would have preferred firing squad.

One was given hard labor for life and

another was given thirty years in prison. At least FDR

did the right thing in this instance. This Nigerian should

be interrogated for information, then given a military

tribunal and hopefully found guilty and sentenced to

death by the aforementioned firing squad. DONE! No

prison, no Gitmo, dead. Now that is a deterrent.

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to

the weak or the timid.

-Dwight D. Eisenhower

This U.S. Citizen