Liberals are ill-equipped by their feeble consciences

IF EVER THERE WERE AN example of liberal frailty and feebleness it is the announcement that President Obama is seeking to limit the effectiveness of the one weapon in the West’s armoury that has proved successful in hunting down Taliban terrorists and their leaders. After giving a robust defence of the use of drones, he then inserts caveats; such as we must be almost certain to the tenth degree that there are no civilians in the target area before the decision is made to kill a Taliban terrorist. A terrorist (let us remember) who will be left to continue on with his hate filled life; and will causes the death of, who knows how many American soldiers. How would Obama explain this to the families of American servicemen (themselves also civilians)? Especially as his armed forces had the chance to, but never killed the Taliban in strict conformity with his caveat.

            

            President Obama’s predecessor was loathed and hated, and considered a Neanderthal by America’s liberals. Now we have a truly liberal president whose gift with rhetoric gave him the Whitehouse. But rhetoric is merely a political device used to arouse or becalm. It buys you into the Whitehouse or Number 10, and does little afterwards to keep you there. What you do practically secures you another term.

            

           Either we use all of our military power short of the nuclear option to defeat our enemies or we buckle under as our political leaders in the West seem to be doing. If our enemies try to defeat us by using our perceived weakness, as they do – and if we comply; then good luck to them, for then we get what we truly deserve.

IF OUR ENEMIES, as they did in the Second World War, brought total war to Europe; then Churchill took the nation’s gloves off and reciprocated in kind to save the nation. This he proceeded to do with the thousand bomber raids over Germany.

Today we have politicians who demand that one arm be tied behind our soldiers backs. In the Second World War the Americans did what they had to do in Europe, not only to destroy Nazism, but bring as many of their young soldiers back alive…whether the Nazis held Frenchmen and women as shields mattered little – but it probably never happened because the Nazis new that it would not work as far as the allies were concerned. The price of victory is great indeed. But today our enfeebled political leaders will succumb to any Islamic threat with the most tentative of responses that they feel their people are prepared to accept. Even if it is dressed up in the Churchillian rhetoric by our politicians

The drones are the one weapon that does not cost the lives of our military, and yet, president Obama seeks to tie one hand behind the backs of those who navigate the drones, by limiting their targeting to a level that may not endanger civilians among which Islamists cower in the belief that the likes of Obama, Cameron, and any Western leader are not prepared to destroy.

HOW FAR HAS THE West diminished itself since it used every effort available to it to destroy the Japanese and Nazis? There were no human rights organisation to intervene, either on the German or Japanese behalf, as there are today regarding the Islamists. It took five years of total war to defeat the both Japanese and Nazi hegemony. But our modern politicians are made of less sterner stuff than those that confronted Germany and Japan.

            

            Today, unlike 1939-1945, the West has retreated into the human rights agenda. Human rights now dictate the schema. The Human Rights lobby today would regard Churchill’s response to Hitler’s concept of Total War, as much a war crime as anything Hitler did.

            

           The West has come up with a weapon that save our soldier’s lives (something their families would be grateful for at least). Yet we now have stop the drone groups setting up in America and the UK, and the frightening thing is that president Obama seems to be listening to this querulous minority. They are small in number, but very noisy; and as we know, those who shout the loudest are listened to politicians.

           

          The drones are a game changer that in Afghanistan have proven more effective at destroying the enemy’s leadership than the presence of 60,000 NATO troops. So why hold back? We should be building more drones and advancing on the technology that creates them. They may be the future of warfare and should have no restrictions on their use that would leave an enemy free to kill.