Welcome to Quadrant Online | Login/ Register Cart (0) $0 View Cart
Menu
June 17th 2016 print

Peter O'Brien

The War Not Prosecuted

Until the West's leaders are prepared to call a spade an invasion, all this brave talk of fighting militant Islam will result in nothing more than a few more air strikes, more summits and, just maybe, additional special forces advisers on the ground. That is not enough. We will lose

islam the worldLast Wednesday, former Army officer and now poster girl for the LGBTI community, Catherine McGregor, had a piece in the Daily Telegraph. Here is the opening sentence:

Australia is engaged in a war, though you would never grasp that from listening to our political leaders or the political class.

Well, that’s refreshing, I thought.  I had previously written McGregor off as, primarily, a self-promoting activist.  Maybe there’s more to her than I thought, I thought.  Let mes see what she has to say. The piece started promisingly with McGregor explaining that our present troubles had their genesis a long time ago.

I do not subscribe to the populist view that this began on September 11, 2001. There have been perennial frontier clashes between Islam and the West going back to The Crusades. Muslim invasions of Europe were defeated as recently as the lifting of the siege of Vienna in 1683.

She rightly criticizes the progressives’ position: that Islam was not the Orlando killer’s motivation. Unfortunately her piece goes rapidly downhill from there, degenerating into a lament at the way that conservatives have allegedly mistreated her LGBTI cohort:

Conservatives have been just as guilty of sophistry. The worst have instinctively blamed the victims for flaunting their “perversion” and ­ piously observed that Islam and homosexuality are each derived from Satan. I could not make this garbage up.

“I could not make this garbage up”?  I rather think she did.  Perhaps she should have named and shamed any conservative who spouted this ‘garbage’ – a conservative of standing, that is, not some lunatic on Twitter or the utter crazies who fill the pews at the infamous Westboro Baptist Church. Perhaps she didn’t think to cite them when writing her article, but the ABC certainly did. On Thursday’s Lateline, compere Tony Jones did a satellite interview with Louis Theroux that began by quoting the crackpot congregation’s delight at the Pulse massacre. Remember, it was a Muslim who killed 49 people in an orgy of bloodshed, but Lateline chose instead to place its focus on an entirely unrepresentative group of “Christians”. Why would that be, do you think? No need to answer.

But back to McGregor, who continued in a similar vein. And at the end we are not treated to any suggestions as to how Group Captain McGregor, a senior serving officer, thinks we should prosecute this war she claims we are involved in. On her initial point — Islam’s expansionist enmity for the West — McGregor is right. But like her former boss and mentor,  Australian of the Year David Morrison, she seems unable to talk the talk, let alone walk the walk.

Yes, we are at war.  Most Quadrant readers have known as much for years.  After the Charlie Hebdo massacre, Francois Hollande also said it, but whether the French president or any of the so-called leaders of the West genuinely understand what this means is highly doubtful. That they have the stomach for such a war for is an even more dubious proposition.

Europe is being invaded, an invasion that commenced many years ago and has been facilitated by one of the most self-destructive initiatives that the West could possibly devise: the European Union.  That most of the invaders are unarmed is neither here nor there.  Thanks to the mindless vacuity of the progressive Left and its infiltration of all our institutions, they haven’t needed to be armed.  But the effect is the same.  The sheer numbers of those so called ‘refugees’ guarantee that they will fester as sullen, unassimilated and parasitic communities, feeding off their host nations while coming to represent an ever-larger and more powerful demographic within them.  Ultimately, as Mark Steyn has warned (see the clip below), they will take over.

So until our leaders, starting with those most affected — Cameron, Hollande, Merkel et al — are prepared to bite the bullet and call a spade an invasion, all this brave talk of ‘war’ will result in nothing more than a few more air strikes, more summits and, just maybe, a few more special forces advisers on the ground. If we, and by that I mean the West, are ‘at war’, we need to act accordingly.  Wars are not won by air strikes.  They are not won by special forces, valuable though they may be.

No, wars are won by balanced conventional forces deployed in such overwhelming numbers that the enemy cannot prevail.  We can continue to bleed, suffering relatively small numbers of casualties every year for the next 100 years (as suggested by former Chief of the Army Peter Leahy) or we can do the job properly and mobilize on the scale we did in 1939.

I know that this will be a hugely risky and complex undertaking.  I do not have the understanding to suggest how the geopolitical considerations might be resolved — how Saudi Arabia or Iran might react to such an intervention, for example.  I only know that the Middle East has been unable to get its own backyard in order. Sooner or later, we will have to do it for them, if for no other reason than to protect our own civilisation.

Such a mobilization would involve Australia.  A stable Europe is as much in our interest now as it was in 1939.

I’m not suggesting the West tool up and go en masse into the Middle East.  What I am suggesting is that when we do go into a trouble spot, such as Syria or Iraq, we do it properly and be prepared to be there for the long haul.  If that means staying in Afghanistan or Iraq for 20 years, so be it. It would also necessitate working with Russia.  The West held its nose and danced with Stalin, it can do the same with Putin if necessary.

Comments [21]

  1. Jody says:

    We who warn will not be here to suffer the consequences of any of this, very fortunately.

  2. Ian MacDougall says:

    Have a look at a Pakistani Muslim’s take on the backwardness of the Islamic world and the frustration it produces in that same world. http://dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/17-Jun-16/ramadan-today-unity-in-hypocrisy
    The refugees making for Europe and elsewhere in such numbers are not heading for Islamic countries. They head for the world of the infidels: Western Europe; the US and Canada; Australia.
    If the West accepts them as self-contained packages and as transplants from which new Islamic communities will grow, then we are in for trouble, and perhaps sooner than a couple of generations.
    I would like to be proved wrong on this, but IMHO the Islamic world is backward because of the stifling influence of its clerics on the education of that world’s youth. The western Enlightenment depended on a breaking of the then clerical stranglehold on its education system, and the encouragement of diversity of opinion, thought and investigation.
    So Muslim immigrants, yes: in regulated numbers. Islamic schools and Koranic educations for the children of those immigrants: most definitely not.

  3. Lacebug says:

    The Muslims invading Europe remind me of the poisonous packages of debt bought and sold just before the GFC.

  4. en passant says:

    We need a complete clean out of every appeasing politician and radical (unacceptable) policies before this cancer becomes terminal.

    As this will not happen I have basically moved to a country that will deal effectively with the problem – and not apologise for doing so. Oz is still nice to visit sometimes.

  5. Patrick McCauley says:

    Ian MacDougall equivocates cleverly by allowing Muslim immigration but banning the Immans and their education system…. so he maintains compassion for the refugees but bans their ‘culture’. Presumeably, these new Muslim immigrants would be subjected to the Australian Education system ? If so, they would be subjected to the left wing memes that define Australian racism/sexism/homophobia (good luck with that one)… and of course, Australian Islamaphobia as well as all the global warming ideology needed to hate the west and the industrial revolution and ‘men’ in longer and better sentences than they have ever dreamed up before. The left would define this as a form of assimilation and ‘cultural erasure’ … and the underground versions of Islamic culture would flood the internet and radicalise all those malcontents (Muslim and multi-cultural) who (like David Hicks) needed a ’cause’ bigger than a bikie gang to fight big brother western democracy. Good try Ian … but no cigar.

    • en passant says:

      Patrick,
      Ian is just an imaginary thought-bubble. He still has a long list of questions to answer on his previous thought bubbles, so do not wait for anything rational or practical to appear.

      • Ian MacDougall says:

        ep:
        Just because you asked some smug (forgettable and forgotten) question a long time ago, nobody is under any obligation to answer it; least of all me.

  6. Bill Martin says:

    An excellent and most timely article, followed by very appropriate comments, except for one howling omission. No mention of the Australian Liberal Alliance! That is unforgivable. The very least the author and the commenters could do is to remind and urge all readers to support the ALA on the 2nd of July. It is the only party with a credible set of policies which also includes the halting and reversing the islamisation of Australia.

  7. Rob Ellison says:

    There have been frontier clashes since the crusade? The crusades were invasions inspired by religious fanaticism and sanctioned by Papal decree. More lately – Muslims lands were divided amongst the Europeans – as with much of the rest of the world – like Roman soldiers gambling for the clothes of the crucified.

    As recently as the 20th century the ‘great game’ – inspired by the myth of geopolitics – played out across the middle east. The recent past saw the game played out between the US and Russia in Afghanistan – which ultimately led to the Taliban and ‘blowback’ that initiated the current mess.

    The only real lessons are that these ‘wars’ are unwinnable and the cost of geopolitics indefensibly high. We are not at war – we follow the US into unwise adventures on the strength of an historic alliance. Typically with a less than total commitment. At home – an occasional lone gunman gets through the net. http://www.refworld.org/docid/57518dde13.html

    • Bill Martin says:

      With a comment like this you could well earn an invitation to any and all Islamic events to be the keynote speaker. What a lot of ignorant rot!

      The crusades were a response to centuries of unprovoked, violent Islamic expansion, particularly the conquering of the Christian Holy Land in the Middle East and rapid advances into southern Europe. As for the carving up of islamic countries following the First World War, it was the termination of the caliphate of the Ottoman Empire, putting an end to the second Islamic expansion over some centuries which included the siege of Vienna. The mistake the allies made was the failure to extinguish Islam once and for all when they had the opportunity. We may never have that chance again before they do away with us.

  8. DRW says:

    The Islamic expansionishs have watched how the Left have taken over institutions and are following suit while the ABC/Labor/MSM have castrated themselves.

  9. Ian MacDougall says:

    Patrick:
    Your rant against me, the Australian education system, mainstream climatology, underground versions of Islamic culture flooding the internet and radicalising all manner of malcontents (Muslim and multi-cultural), old Uncle Tom Cobbley and all is noted. And God help us, you manage to work in David Hicks and some “’cause’ bigger than a bikie gang to fight big brother western democracy.” What is left out?
    By this stage, you must have smoke coming out your ears.
    So just to be on the safe side, it might be an idea to warn the local fire brigade. You never know: someone might take you seriously.
    But I note also your use of the word “presumeably” (sic) at an early stage of said rant.
    As Popeye the Sailor might have said, you go a presumeablomination (or three; or several) too far.
    Worth a considereation? Perhaps?

    • Bill Martin says:

      Ian, the degree of sarcasm in this post is unwarranted and unbecoming of you. Patrick’s comment seemed perfectly reasonable to me, for what that’s worth.

  10. en passant says:

    Bill,
    Leave Ian alone, he is a sick puppy. Anyway, he is more famous than any of us as he has coined a new figure of speech called a ‘MacDougallism’ (the MacGonagallism of prose). Let me explain by referring to another article on which Mac thought-bubbled:

    “My apologies for updating my comment on an archived story but Ian MacDougall’s thinking about the ‘honour trap’ has shaken me. I had not fully grasped how far Australia had morally and intellectually declined until I saw how glibly and seriously he could make that comment.

    Not much further to go along the road mapped out by Liberal, Labor & the Greens, aided by the MSM and the education system and mercifully it will be all over.thanks to intellectual euthanasia.

    My additional comment at Quadrant Online at: http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2016/04/anzac-revionists-implacable-assault/ is:

    “I have just reread my entry in Quadrant Online and it is a great example of why one should not post a comment when the blood is boiling (probably because of global warming).
    As the article is now archived few if any will read my comment (and therefore note the typos and grammatical errors I made), but for the record I want to post the following additional material as I cannot get that new figure of speech called “a MacDougallism” out of my mind. Let a better grammarian than me classify a thought-bubble that states “… what we might call the ‘honour trap’ or the shirker/hero dilemma” [about those who would selflessly give their lives in a futile cause].

    Guggenheim refused to take a place in a lifeboat when the Titanic was sinking – but it was his wife who fell into the MacDongallism and refused to go without him. When the Titanic sank, Guggenheim floated to the surface and approached a lifeboat – who refused to take him as they were ‘full’, so without complaint he swam away to certain death – a victim of the honour trap. Stupid fellow! He could easily have bought a place and lived for a few more years.

    In my haste to post I missed the obvious anti-hero MacGonagle surely admires most: that gold medal performance must certainly go to the Captain of the cruise ship, the Concordia. Not only did he not fall into the ‘honour trap’, but he lead the way to the lifeboats! What a man! Let us set aside those stupid Nelsons, Drakes, the many Captains who went down with their ships and the sacrifice of the tiny ‘Glow Worm’ that sailed straight at the mighty Scharnhorst to distract her and let the convoy it was protecting escape its guns. The Glow Worm and its crew were destroyed. I read that story in Primary School and it inspired me. It still does, but that was long before the Concordia sank and a new anti-’honour trap’ hero arose.
    No, children should be taught to recognise and avoid the ‘honour trap’ and the follow the ‘MacGoogle’ example of Captain Coward of the Concordia.
    It will give them a firm grounding to become politicians in any western country.”

  11. Ian MacDougall says:

    Bill:
    Thank you for your observation above, which as usual is pretty well balanced. However, I think you may benefit from a reading of the whole series of posts, which begins with mine of June 18, 2016 at 9:10 am: “Have a look at a Pakistani Muslim’s take on the backwardness of the Islamic world… “ and ends with ‘en passant’ stating at June 19, 2016 at 6:32 pm: “Bill, Leave Ian alone, he is a sick puppy… “
    I put it to you that the initiative in the above game of ping-pong abuse did not come from me, though I readily admit to a reluctance to cop such garbage sweet when it is served up to me by someone who chooses to hide behind a nom de cringe. It is just my nature I suppose.
    ‘en passant’ puts great store on a selective quotation of his own from a comment I wrote on The Implacable Assault on ANZAC by Alistair Pope ( http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2016/04/anzac-revionists-implacable-assault/ ) I suggest that anyone here who is in any doubt about my bona fides on this matter (vis a vis en passant’s) could follow that link and read what I actually wrote rather than just en passant’s careful selection from it.
    At no stage did I disparage the Anzacs. Quite the contrary:
    QUOTE BEGINS.

    These were “ordinary” ANZACs — in reality magnificent and loyal men who would rather have died than betray the standards of the ethos they believed in and lived by. These are the souls that the post-modernist historians mock, the targets of their lies and cheap shots. [3]
    Of the 500-or-so men from the 3rd Light Horse Brigade who charged at the Nek that day, 372 were killed or wounded.

    Unfortunately, reference [3] whatever it is, is not included. Nor is any identification of the allegedly mocking pomo historian, though I have neither doubt that such exists nor sympathy for pomo and its unholy creations.

    Trooper Harold Rush[2] knew the charge was hopeless and that he was about to die. He also knew that everyone around him was going to die too. After uttering the last words now engraved on his tombstone, “Goodbye Cobber, God Bless You”, 23-year-old Rush climbed the parapet as a matter of personal honour, courage and loyalty to his fellow soldiers.
    Less than ten metres and thirty seconds later, Harold Rush was dead.

    Death before dishonour. This passage illustrates quite well what we might call the ‘honour trap’ or the shirker/hero dilemma. Better to be a dead hero, even having died completely pointlessly and in vain, than a live shirker.
    Everyone from the field commander down to the lowliest private soldier is trapped in this way. For the private: better to go over the top and to almost 100% certain death than spend the rest of his life under a cloud of disbelief in himself: the knowledge that he was out of the way while his mates and comrades were being slaughtered. For the commander, better to be decisive and to order a well-precedented but as good as doomed charge into a horizontal torrent of machine gun bullets than to be condemned as a dithering dill or even just ridiculed as a ‘Dugout Doug’ (Douglas MacArthur). Better to continue stubbornly with a strategy proven again and again dumb and dud than to refuse to follow it yet again and for the umpteenth time.

    There might have been a lot wrong with the lamentable Haig, but there is nothing wrong with ANZAC. Not Anzac Cove as a place of modern pilgrimage ( I have been there) nor Anzac Day as a commemoration of terrible, but far from pointless, sacrifice. It is worth pondering, in this regard, what the modern world would be like if the Central Powers had been victorious in World War 1, and more importantly, if the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis had won in World War 2. It is too horrible to contemplate.
    QUOTE ENDS
    If ‘en passant’, whoever he is, can find anything genuinely wrong or offensive to the memory of our heroic Diggers in that, let him say so publicly: right here.
    (I suggest we could be in for a long wait.)

  12. en passant says:

    I found your comment that the Diggers fell for the ‘honour trap’ offensive; “Death before dishonour. This passage illustrates quite well what we might call the ‘honour trap’ or the shirker/hero dilemma. Better to be a dead hero, even having died completely pointlessly and in vain, than a live shirker.” Who, apart from yourself knew that honour was a trap?

  13. Ian MacDougall says:

    ‘en passant’, I suggest you read again what I wrote outlining the nature of an honour trap.
    I am not against ‘honour’ per se or against the concept of it. But in certain situations, particularly on battlefields, it leads people into pointlessly destructive and self-destructive behaviour.
    This is a thread about Islam. The peoples and countries in its thrall provide example after example of the honour trap. See for instance this horrific story at http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2016/her-fathermother-and-brother-cut-her-throat/ .

    Relatives slit the throat of a young mother who was pregnant with her second child after she married against their will near Lahore, officials said Friday, the latest in a spate of so-called “honour killings”.

    The ‘honour’ of a Muslim family all too often trumps any love to be found among and between the members of it.

    Hundreds of women are murdered by their relatives in conservative Muslim Pakistan each year on the pretext of defending what is seen as family honour.
    Last week sixteen year-old Zeenat Bibi was killed in Lahore by her mother for marrying a man of her own choice in a case that sparked condemnation throughout the country.
    It was swiftly followed by another killing, of a couple in Lahore who married without their family’s consent.
    On Sunday a young girl was killed by her brother for insisting on marrying the man of her choice in the city of Sialkot, also in Punjab.

    Islam is a terrible religion, if only because its clerics do nothing to discourage such behaviour on the part of its adherents. Quite the contrary in fact.

  14. Ian MacDougall says:

    Also relevant: Robert Manne on THE MIND OF THE ISLAMIC STATE: An ideology of savagery.
    .
    https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2016/june/1464703200/robert-manne/mind-islamic-state

  15. Jody says:

    Cop this!! Waleed Aly enlightening us re “Orlando”. Apparently those tired of narratives – like peace – aren’t relevant in the western world anymore.

    Listen up, Waleed…”Peace” isn’t a narrative: it might be in Egypt but it isn’t in the English speaking world:

    https://radio.abc.net.au/programitem/pgXK6DqROV?play=true

Comments are closed.

Comments are closed.