Share

The US/CIA experience in Vietnam should give us plenty of evidence that there are more advantages to running COIN operations in today’s global war on terror than in conducting conventional warfare option. It is even more evident that if we were to plan and execute a sound ‘pacification’ plan in Iraq or Afghanistan, then there must be some elements of COIN at play to help balance out how we mitigate growing insurgent operations. They are smarter and faster at learning U.S. order of battle so how we fight is not a big secret.

In Vietnam the same problem was encountered by the CIA as the North Vietnamese already had extensive documentation of CIA doctrine in conducting air drops, employing stay-behind units, etc. without the benefit of helping that country make changes from within. Obviously, the CIA was fairly confident it could continue to make drops and lose team after team yet they did not factor in the possibility their teams had been compromised time after time. Maybe sheer dumb luck made some missions successful and still, they were failures for a long-term solution.

First, the CIA did not know the North Vietnamese had been consistently studying its methodology and quickly executing countermeasures and mostly obtained this information from the Chinese. Second, incursions carried out into a closed society must accompany a much more comprehensive plan. Once on the ground, units would have to depend on their limited training and then if they landed close enough to populated areas they were instructed to stay low for short periods of time gathering information. But then there was no plan in how to approach locals other than maybe clerics or family members and that alone always posed a great risk to the team members, thus really not accomplishing much but to get them killed or captured and tried.

There was little consideration for exploiting political and ideological angles within the population; at least just not right away. Eventually this reality would manifest itself fully. The suggestion by the CIA to President Kennedy was to engage the population with these psychological techniques, to create the illusion that there was a nascent revolutionary movement at play within North Vietnam and create the threat from within. This approach would have been a proper complement to paramilitary operations, since that could have been the second stage; to actually carry out clandestine operations, sabotage, and a direct attack on the government machine.

There was some of this work involved in the post-invasion stability operations in Japan and Germany, and these are two success stories that need to be studied more. When the allies moved in looked around and started to guide these countries into a post-war, they already had a plan, the intelligence base to tell them where to begin securing the population (borders) supervising local police and basically keeping track of everything the locals did before a turn-over could take place.

So how do we carry out these incursions and do we conduct part sabotage/assassination (just as the Israelis did) while we conduct aggressive PSYOPS campaigns? Even disinformation and propaganda efforts must carry a purpose and that is to engender in the local population the need to fight for their future. Initially the CIA’s intention was to help the Vietnamese become independent from any foreign intervention in the end and this is the basis for stability operations.

The employment of irregular forces (indigenous) is of great importance because they have a vested interest in not only fighting an insurgency such as Iraq, but also to gradually wean themselves from foreign intervention, which is the main purpose of introducing stability operations (nation-building). This has not always been a well carried out concept, as we seem to engage countries with cultures totally different from ours and often we fail to recognize that those differences will affect the outcome of any conflict and how that culture will survive post-conflict/invasion.

The absence of the rule of law is the first factor that must be either established or maintained if already present in the targeted environment. Efforts of pacification were disrupted constantly by the VCI by threatening those people and agencies working on re-building the country with military attacks. Though the allies were able to fight the VCI successfully and provide protection for these activities imagine any NGO working in the field or that matter civil affairs unit while under fire. The first thing that should be provided to the non-combatant population is security. They either get it from their government with foreign assistance or they fall under the rule of insurgent groups and historically the populations do not well at all. That was a critical development in Algeria where the French government allowed more than one political fringe group to develop and begin conducting counterintelligence operations separate from government support then had to try and control more than one group with civilians at greatest risk who were ultimately main victims of hostilities. The French allowed Algerian populations to be stripped of their identities in order to make counterintelligence efforts more difficult and people were chased away from their homes by all factions so there was no security for them.

The Iraq parallel

We’ve tried this endeavor before and had been successful which I wonder if much thought was given to the application of the principles involved in stability operations in addition to the rule of law is the continuity of governance, this includes social and government services, local services, trash pickup, electrical power, potable water, police, border/population control, etc. The greatest examples are post-invasion Germany and Japan. In both cases military police were deployed to conduct law enforcement operations while there was a controlled environment of the population and local government that enabled social growth and the beginning of rebuilding their infrastructure. This could not be done if hostilities were still a consideration, from either conventional or insurgent forces. In the case of Iraq those elements of security and of continuity of governance were absent, combat forces thrust into the realm of law enforcement duties were lacking in training and experience; the difference between fighting a shooting war and maintaining law and order have had a long-term impact on life here. Reconstruction efforts can easily slow down or stop in the presence of violence, whether from insurgent activity or rampant criminality or a combination of both. This has been the case in Iraq.

The VCI also operated openly in populated areas unlike insurgents in Iraq, who opt for a more covert approach but then in some areas they do make themselves known throughout neighborhoods. Iraq insurgents don’t show the highly organized military organization as did the VCI in that the Iraqis did not form a shadow government to run counter to the local government but then there was none to speak of for a while so I guess the CPA (Coalition Provisional Authority) at first tried to establish a fresh government once Saddam’s regime elements were removed causing a chaotic situation which grew out of control.

I wonder, and would like to get some feedback on this, if some of you who have worked in this field directly could clarify how coalition forces could have gained more ground here by utilizing a COIN approach after the invasion and early enough in the game. Before the mass exodus of government personnel, the sacking of businesses and attacks on police stations and police elements – and I do consider the fact that the potential for those attacks was unfortunately ignored as a possibility – would have been more advantageous because the people of Iraq, though living in authoritarian but controlled environment, would have been more keen on participating in their own liberation afterwards. COIN can easily influence positive or negative political and social change in a country and an effective tool to aid in establishing the stability process.
A combined approach

I don’t want to complain without offering some sort of theoretical plan just as a mental exercise. I could see introducing COIN operations during conventional hostilities to help build an intelligence foundation we could use once things de-escalate enough to begin the stability phase. I’m not saying that using elite units to carry out sabotage missions while others carry out pure SPYOPS within the population could not work. First we would have to link up with the locals and build the necessary networks and we know from experience that native forces and other government structures will have to come into play because the nature of nation building is to return that country to an improved state of peace.

By removing the threat to security in this effort we’re increasing our success rate, of course, this cannot be edged in stone as the nature of warfare is ever changing and not every threat to our operations can be mitigated ahead of time. Perhaps there should be a series of scenarios, preferably worst case scenarios already worked out to aid in the introduction of NGOs as well as a trained and capable constabulary waiting to deploy. Combat troops should have some exposure to law enforcement training but that is not their main purpose and only a civilian constabulary should be in place to assist with these duties.

In essence, had we employed of COIN action before the loss of law and order as it stood before the invasion, the overall environment might have been more accommodating to a continuation of routine life in Iraq while helping them re-build. It’s just a theory but COIN would have been more effective in pushing the Iraqis into wanting their situation to return to some level of normalcy. Just like the Northern Vietnam PSYOPS campaigns, the objective would be to create a real or illusionary revolution or political movement to get the population to be more receptive to change and to reject helping the insurgency. A strong government in place is another necessary element which did not exist in Iraq post-invasion unlike the Vietnamese who had at least strong leadership from the top and was able to rally the people to be part of the fight. This could only be done with the balanced combination of COIN and local support. I think if this is not currently the doctrine to use COIN along with all other military and clandestine resources then that could be the future of warfare; prepare them ahead of time for what’s to come – whatever many outcomes we can devise – unlike current doctrine which to me, appears to mitigate problems as they come up…little or no vision of potential issues.

Sources:
The Coalition Provisional Authority’s Experience with Governance in Iraq, Celeste Ward, United States Institute of Peace, May 2005, www.usip.org
The Coalition Provisional Authority’s Experience with Public Security in Iraq, Robert Perito, United States Institute of Peace, April 2005, www.usip.org
U.S. Police in Peace and Stability Operations, Robert Perito, United States Institute of Peace, August 2007, www.usip.org

Targeting the Taliban
By Michael Fowler

The simplest and safest way to thwart an enemy’s ability to conduct war is to destroy their supply lines. This is an old and useful tactic from the time of King Nebuchadnezzar II (605-562) of Babylon. His armies would surround their hapless victims who had taken refuge in forts, cut off all supplies, including water and food, until famine weakened their army, and then attack. This is a brutal but effective military ploy. We have been in Afghanistan for eight years—and neither the Bush administration nor the Obama administration has effectively utilized this strategy.

The solution to winning the war in Afghanistan is to destroy the Taliban’s ability to make war, causing the decimation of the Taliban war machine. The Taliban’s supply lines are the poppy fields. Eliminating those fields as a source of income would strike a fatal blow to the Taliban.

The Taliban are mafia drug-lords wrapped in Middle-Eastern freedom-fighter apparel. They generate $100 to $150 million annually by imposing “taxes” on opium farmers.Selling and exporting opium raises $700 to $800 million annually for the Taliban. This allows for the purchase of arms for insurgency, terrorism and black-market tyranny. Worldwide, Afghan heroin fuels 93 percent of a $65 billion trade, far surpassing all of Mexico, Southeast Asia and South America combined. The United Nations estimates between 15 to 21 million people use this highly addictive drug. Afghan heroin alone kills over 100,000 people each year, outweighing the U.S. combat losses of Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Grenada and Vietnam combined.

Our current policy of agricultural transformation allows the cultivation of opium poppies until economic incentives prompt farmers to take up other crops such as pomegranates and grapes. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime 2009 Annual Report, opium production has doubled under U.S. occupation and is so bountiful that the Taliban has reportedly stored 12,000 tons of opium, which can supply the entire world for three years. We need a new plan.

If the poppy fields in Afghanistan were eradicated, this would annihilate the Taliban’s primary source of funding. This in turn would eliminate their ability to corrupt the Karzi government, buy arms, cause terror, protect al-Qaeda and buy foreign influence. It is the single, clearest solution and would end the havoc in southern Afghanistan and northern Pakistan while devastating world heroin trafficking in a matter of weeks. This is a win-win strategy.

Proponents against the eradication of Afghanistan’s poppy fields argue that world demand will only increase production in other areas, making poppy destruction a useless endeavor. “If Afghanistan were suddenly wiped out as a producer of opium—by bad weather or a blight or eradication efforts—other parts of the world would simply emerge as new producers,” said Founding Executive Director of the Drug Policy Alliance Ethan Nadelmann. This assumption, while based on the law of supply and demand, ignores the difficulties associated with expanding any type of production from clearing and preparing new land and setting up irrigation. Moreover, counter-drug operations performed in the United States and elsewhere use crop eradication as a means. Focused on the drug factor alone, Mr. Nadelmann misses the larger point: Destroying Afghan’s poppy fields would bankrupt the Taliban, preventing them from resupplying arms and killing Americans.

Others believe increased Taliban recruitment is the primary objection to field destruction. U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates are both on record saying that destroying the poppy fields would strengthen the Taliban and that every disenfranchised farmer would become a Taliban recruit. That may be the case with the devastation of one or two fields, but it will not be the case with total destruction of any and all poppy fields.

A counterargument to this is that when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan almost three decades ago, opium production increased in response to increased arms expenditures. This shows that the economic needs of the insurgent army drive production. Moreover, eight-years of permissiveness have allowed the Taliban to strengthen their forces to an all-time high. In fact, 2009 was the highest loss of life for U.S. and NATO forces. Permitting opium production did not eliminate or curb the Taliban. Another point is that when seasonal cultivation ends, the Taliban gains strengths as most of the opium farmers become fighters and take up arms after the harvest.

One of the fiercest arguments against the destruction of Afghanistan poppy fields is that if opium production is eliminated it will destroy the Afghanistan economy. First, no one makes that argument for Mexican drug-dealers or marijuana cultivators in California. Second, if the crops were removed the Taliban would collapse, Afghanistan would become safe and foreign investment money would flow into that country. More to the point, Afghan farmer’s gross revenues from opium is about $1 billion dollars according to 2007 U.N. estimates, while our 2007 U.S. Military operations cost taxpayers $35 billion. Therefore, the plan should be: burn the fields, crush the Taliban, send the boys home, send one billion in aid and save $34 billion a year.

The U.S. dominates the air in Afghanistan. Poppy fields grow in full sunlight, and forests do not obscure the poppy fields. Eradication efforts will not be hampered by a lack of discovery. Modern herbicides are quite safe and effective, as well as the use of tractors to plow the fields under. When the Afghan farmer is faced with the choice of taking U.S. assistance to grow legal crops or face total eradication of his crops and imprisonment, he will be far more motivated than he currently is to switch his crops.

In the past, the United States did not have the ability to eradicate those fields. Now, we are the occupier of Afghanistan and have the capacity and the duty to destroy this trade. Every poppy that grows empowers the Taliban with more artillery that will be used to kill American soldiers and Marines. No one has more power than Mr. Obama to dispatch the largest source of heroin export in the world. If he really wants get out of Afghanistan and cares about our troops, he must destroy those fields.

-Michael Fowler is the director of Veterans for Academic Freedom, a former Force Recon Marine, instructor of Christian apologetics, author and talk-radio host.

by Leonard Magruder

Following in the footsteps of Rep. Joe Wilson  who is now famous for his “You Lie!” outburst during Pres. Obama’s speech.  The universities and media are still promoting the same Leftist views about the current War on Terror, as they did, and continue to do on the War in Vietnam.  Let’s review their record on Vietnam to see if they can be trusted now.

We have in our archives a rare book, although some libraries have it, containing 118 of the most important pieces of literature handed out by the antiwar movement between the years 1964 and 1974. Mutiny Does Not Happen Lightly: the Literature of the American Resistance to the Vietnam War. Edited by G. Louis Heath, a professor of sociology at Illinois State University, it was published in 1976 in a limited edition, “selected so as to present an accurate cross-section of the American resistance to the Vietnam War during 1964-1974.”

Containing mostly information on Who, What, Where of the various demonstrations and marches, we, however, are interested in the Why. We carefully went through all 597 pages of this book for all material that focused on the reasons for the anti-war protests. Here are all the statements of that type that we found. The essence of what the anti-war movement told others as to what the war was all about, is found here.

FROM THE LITERATURE OF THE WAR PROTESTS OF THE 60’S (0ur comments added):

“The May 2nd movement is launching an anti-induction campaign on the campuses. …based on the refusal to fight against the people of Vietnam. Some chapters of May 2 plan to campaign to donate blood and other medical aid to the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam (Viet Cong) to concretely show our support for national liberation struggles. Receiving blood from U.S. college students will be a terrific morale booster for the Vietnamese people.”

May 2nd Movement- Sept. 8, 1965

(comment: a little aid and comfort from a U.S. branch of the Viet Cong)

“The game of the rich has caught up to Pig America. The Vietnamese have kicked ass out of U.S. occupational troops. More and more G.I.’s will no longer listen to Pig Nixon’s orders and are turning their guns around on the real enemy. The Provisional Revolutionary Government in Vietnam (Viet Cong) has led the Vietnamese people to complete victory.”

Roxboro School SDS- Cleveland Heights – June 4, 1972

(comment: by 1972 the Americans had won all five major offensives at a KIA (killed in action) ratio of 15 to 1, and South Vietnam was 95% pacified. After the Americans fought the enemy to a peace treaty and left, South Vietnam defended itself for two years until bitter anti-war Democrats in Congress betrayed them by cutting off their ammunition. These are the kinds of elementary facts that students never seem to know.)

“Recently many articles have appeared in the movement press expounding the virtues of deserting and going AWOL. ‘Come to Canada and be a man.’ ‘Soldiers are pigs.’ ‘To remain in the imperialist U.S. Army rather than leaving is comparable to being a Nazi.’ Last year there were, by Pentagon counts, 250,000 AWOL’s and over 53,000 deserters. This has not made much of a dent in the fighting strength of the U.S.Army. That dent has clearly come from the heroic struggle of the Vietnamese people under the leadership of the NLF and the Provisional Revolutionary Government.”

New York Regional SDS distributed at Boston University – Feb. 22, 1969

(comment: you really had to be gullible to join the anti-war movement)

Letter from Ho Chi Minh to a radical activist in Youth Against War and Fascism, Free University of New York:

“My Dear ——-

I have received your letter. You and the progressive American people, especially the youth, feel indignant at the barbarous crimes perpetrated in Vietnam by the U.S. imperialists who have thus besmeared the honor of the American people and the noble traditions of the United States. I am glad to learn that you and many other young Americans are actively endeavoring under varied forms to help push forward the movement against the war of aggression in Vietnam and in support of the Vietnamese people. With affectionate greetings, Signed, Uncle Ho”

June 18, Nov. 25, 1965

(comment: congratulations on your treason from Uncle Ho)

“The U.S. government is planning shortly to order the bombing of Haipong, an industrial city of half a million people, which is Hanoi’s seaport, and of Hanoi itself. The U.S. also plans to bomb the system of dikes in the Democratic Republic of Vietnam which keeps the North Vietnamese from drowning and starving. Just as the U.S. is attempting to drown in blood the liberation struggle of the South Vietnamese people because it is the model for liberation struggles everywhere, so North Vietnam is being bombed to bits because it shows all colonial and former colonial countries, by living example, that Socialism can solve their problems.”

Youth Against War and Fascism, Free University of New York – Aug. 27, 1966

(comment: no one bombed any dikes. Leftist editor Harrison Salisbury started this myth.)

“As far as the Vietnamese are concerned , we are fighting on the side of Hitlerism, and they hope we lose. Most people support the NLF. Why? The war in Vietnam is not being fought according to the rules. Prisoners are tortured. Our planes drop incendiary bombs on civilian villages. Our soldiers shoot at women and children. Your officers will tell you that it is all necessary, that we couldn’t win the war any other way. We believe that the atrocities which are necessary to win this war against the people of Vietnam are inexcusable.”

Vietnam Day Committee, San Francisco – Aug. 2, 1966.

(comment: spreading atrocity lies was a specialty.)

“It is important for us to tell people why the demands of the NFL and the PRG represent the only hope for peace, independence and unity in Vietnam. To anyone who knows the political-military situation in Vietnam, to declare for immediate withdrawal is to support the NLF without saying it. What is important…is to show that Vietnam is only a place where U.S. policies of neocolonialism have met with active resistance.”

Stanford University – November 15, 1969

(comment: hypocrisy was another specialty)

“Just when Westmoreland was boasting that there were only small guerrilla groups left, he was hit in October 1967 with a division-sized unit. While he was explaining that this was a desperate last fling, he was hit by another division- sized unit. The U.S. forces never recovered from this. Westmoreland started panic measures. Forced to disperse, he opened the way for the NLF’s mighty Tet offensive in late January that sealed the fate of the ‘limited war’ because from then on Westmoreland, and General Abrams after him were forced onto the strategic and tactical defensive.”

Radical Student Union – Univ. of California- Berkeley- Dec. 11, 1969

(comment: in the “mighty” Tet Offensive the enemy lost 40,000 dead, half his forces, and the Viet Cong was decimated, never again a credible force. The allies lost 1,231. This is what CBS’s Walter Cronkite called a “stalemate.”)

“I want Spiro Agnew to know that I bring this assembly a message of greetings and solidarity with the American people from the Viet Cong. I want Agnew to know that this generation is establishing its own diplomatic relations, because we are not at war with the people of Vietnam. Our war is with the Pentagon, Wall Street, and Spiro T. Agnew. Nixon plans to win…by withdrawing enough troops to deflate antiwar sentiments at home , while fortifying major cities like Hue and Saigon and from this position of fortification carry out the raging air war against the countryside that most students of Vietnam now understand is controlled by some 80% of the National Liberation Front.”

Speech by Rennie Davis, San Francisco Peace Rally – Nov. 15, 1969

(comment: 80% !! ole’ Rennie in solidarity with Viet Cong lies. Could subversion be more obvious? Student leaders just made up things and everybody, like sheep, believed them.)

“The resistance of the people of South Vietnam is an indigenous movement of politically and religiously diverse groups and individuals which was organized in response to years of oppression and illegal action by the U.S. government and its various ‘puppet’ regimes in Saigon. In order to counter the U.S. government’s propaganda –which falsely teaches the public that the ‘enemy’ is an outside, ‘communist’ aggressor – we will continue to make use of various educational means. The U.S. government is trying to stifle, at tremendous cost and risk, a liberation struggle which is setting the example for all oppressed peoples.”

The U.S. Committee to aid the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam (Viet Cong) New York City,- May 10, 1966

(comment: apparently professors forgot to tell them there was an “outside enemy,” called the Communist North)

By the simple device of charging American soldiers with aggression against the “freedom fighters” of the Viet Cong, legions of students, using this excuse to justify their “moral outrage” (and avoid the draft), engineered a movement that spread to the gullible throughout the nation, helping to defeat a noble cause to bring freedom to others. Not a single one of these attacks on the war mentions that America was helping South Vietnam to fight Communist aggression.

As Jamie Glazov, noted historian, once pointed out on FrontPageMag:

“The most putrid lie of the Left – was the assumption that the U.S. was somehow fighting the people of South Vietnam, when it in fact was actually fighting the Communists who were seeking to imprison them.”

And today they are crawling back in bed with those same old toothless hags of the 60’s—“aggression,” “immoral,” “imperialism”—and re-cycling the same old lies.

As late as the thirtieth anniversary of the Vietnam War, Stephen Young could write, “Our national recollection of the war matches that of the New Left.” Because that is what is preserved and taught in our universities. For thirty years, for example, they have continued to use Karnow’s, “Vietnam: A History”, a work so biased that when presented as a PBS series people who had been there rioted in Los Angeles, New Orleans, New York, Houston, and Paris.

The election of 2004 was a massive repudiation by Vietnam vets of the New Left version of the war. The new Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation says they lied. The above article makes it very clear that they lied.

So how can they be trusted to tell the truth now? In the end we do not want your views on war: “You Lie!”

magruder44 <@> aol  com

By Michael Fowler

Edmund Burke said, “All that is necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.” Whereas pacifism—as promoted by Leo Tolstoy, the moral hero of the left—demands that good men do nothing even in the face of genocide.

Liberal pacifism is subversive theology designed to disarm Christians from ethics. It is rhetoric expounded to Christians not to fight against evil by people who reject Christianity, rather than a moral code. Christians can and must fight when fighting is more ethical than not fighting. It was ethical to fight the Nazi’s to free the world from Hitler’s jack-booted brutality; it was ethical to fight the North Vietnamese Army to prevent the killing and enslavement of millions of Vietnamese.

Iraqi woman at mass grave in Iraq

When the history of the Liberal pacifists is examined all that is seen is blood. Anti-war activists successfully protested and forced the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Vietnam that resulted in the killing of 1.4 million Vietnamese by Ho Chi Min’s forces. Vietnamese “boat people” were dying in the Pacific, while President Jimmy Carter did nothing. As Serbians attempted to fight off the Islamic Crusade, the left made up false reports of genocide, needlessly destroyed bridges, hospitals, and defended the bombing on Easter. When American Forces freed Kuwait from Saddam, the pacifists cried foul. Iraqis were freed from Saddam’s genocide of over 400,000 and leftists wanted the United States to pull out and leave them to the wolves as President Barack Obama’s administration is doing as we speak. Yes, they are pacifists, with other people’s blood.

Fr. Stanley S. Harakas, dean emeritus of Holy Cross School of Theology in Boston stated, “The just war theory holds that war is an evil, and seeks to make it less so.” This was Patrick Henry’s appeal in his Give me Liberty or Give me Death speech, “Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace– but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! …Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle?” When war exists, fighting it or standing in ethical opposition to it is to reduce its effects. To prove this, I need only submit millions of Russian Orthodox corpses killed by those who earlier extorted Tolstoy’s pacifism. Moral authority cannot be claimed when standing aside in permissiveness to allow murder.

Liberal pacifism is the soothing lie of communists who know that so long as people still believe in God and ethics, communism cannot win. They have learned that killing millions will not effectively change culture. They now believe that the best way to change culture is to corrupt its theology rather than eliminate it outright, because man is a “religious animal.”

Pacifism cannot be justified from Christian ethics, so they corrupt them. Pacifists will point to the Old Testament teaching of “Thou shall not kill.” Yet, they show themselves hypocrites when three pages later the explanation of the law is, “Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.” (Exodus 21:17), a law they will reject. Thus, “Thou shall not kill” refers to murder and manslaughter.

Pacifists proclaim, “Turn the other cheek” as Christ taught. Christ also approved of the Law of Moses, and when Roman soldiers confronted him and asked the open question, “What about us?” He did not tell them to lay down their weapons of war and killing, rather “your pay is enough,” do not use extortion. (Luke 3:14) When Christ says turn the other cheek, this is not permission to allow others to murder, rape and pillage, nor is it the end of civil authority.

Liberal pacifism is not the pacifism of Quakers who refuse to be involved and separate from society. Quakers believe in the totality of scripture. Whereas Liberals only use “thou shall not kill” as the one law they wish to use to fetter all that resist them. Meaning “thou shall not kill me.”

The faith of a Liberal pacifist is one who has abandoned all of God’s tenets and adopted the law of witchcraft, “harm none, and do what thou will.” They erroneously assert themselves as the highest moral authority and above Christianity because “small-minded Christians still believe in killing. Therefore we, the pacifists, are superior in our morals;” morals that only extend as far as their own noses.
Pacifism of liberals is merely a weapon to disarm their opponents in order to take control of the levers of power. They are not truly interested in morals but in the acquisition of power over the people. How else can their actions be justified? Thinking that liberals believe in pacifism is as foolish as Neville Chamberlain’s belief in Adolf Hitler’s peace treaty. Pacifism as preached by liberals is only a seduction to allow the promulgation of evil, whereas love as preached by Christians is to destroy evil.

-Michael Fowler is the director of Veterans for Academic Freedom, a former Force Recon Marine, instructor of Christian apologetics, author and talk-radio host.

http://www.ebireflections.org/index.php?vol=001_vol&iss=007_issue&section=03_foreign_affairs&item=01_foreign_affairs.html#id03_foreign_affairs