Politically Correct Wars Are Immoral

It appears that political correctness has infected many of our military brass, indeed even instructors in our military academies. It is one thing when politicians and cultural elites force it into our lives; it’s quite dangerous, however, when those selected to protect us elevate political correctness over the necessity of vanquishing enemies intent on destroying us.

Many of us now believe that a much ballyhooed "higher morality" in the conduct of war is a major cause for America and the West not achieving its goal of destroying jihadist terrorisim. A new "counter-insurgency manual" provides evidence of a military guided not by the age-old assumption of an army’s purpose being military victory over its enemy but, instead, attempts at sociology and "understanding" the enemy’s culture, and the need to persuade the enemy of our goodness and noble intentions.

In the name of "compassion," our soldiers are at times asked to risk their lives, placing themselves in lethal fighting conditions, so as to spare the "innocents" among the enemy. Where bombing from above could easily destroy a terrorist hideout, young Americans are forced to fight treacherous hand-to-hand combat so that "innocents" mingled among the jihadists will not be harmed.

Because of this rule, more soldiers die than need be, creating, also, demoralization and hesitancy. Some, out of fear of later military reprimand, are reluctant to shoot at terrorist targets where civilians may also be. This, too, renders our war less effective than it could be. Beyond question, this new ethos stands in the way of victory. The Iraq war should have been won long ago. If soft political correctness remains a guiding military motif, the most powerful nation in the world will have defeated itself, given victory to a rag-tag al Qaeda band unworthy of being called fighting men.

Even assuming that the enemy’s non-combatant members are innocent, morality dictates only that a soldier not engage in cruelty, as opposed to this form of "compassion" that chooses the enemy’s life over one’s own. "Is," as the Jewish Talmud asks, "his blood sweeter than mine?" Why should one posit that, in relation to the "innocent" enemy, our own soldiers are somehow guilty, expendable? After all, our soldiers embark on these missions not for greed and lust but in self-defense, national self-defense.

A war for survival is clearly an imperative war. As such, a soldier is given license to do whatever combat demands to rout the enemy so long as his approach does not contravene the intent of such a battle for survival. Thus, raping the opponent’s women or plundering his treasure would be prohibited since these are activities of lust and greed for which one does not go to war. They nullify the war’s purpose. Fighting to the fullest and in the most effective way, however, conforms to the ethical imperative of victory, a lasting and resounding victory.

Deliberately murdering civilians as a "tactic" to frighten the enemy into submission is not moral. But targeting outposts harboring terrorists planning or engaged in killing you is what war is all about, irrespective of whether or not collateral damage occurs. This is especially necessary given the diabolic circumstance wherein Islamic terrorists purposely place themselves among members of their clan.

If America, Israel and the West refuse to wage full overpowering war in these neighborhoods, we might as well give the keys to the global kingdom to the jihadists who are exploiting these shielding methods as a means to innoculate themselves from attack within the very positions from whence they are attacking.

Moral war conduct demands that we not engage in deliberate cruelty, lust and greed. It is not, however, moral to construct a code which chooses the enemy’s life over one’s very own. It is immoral for a society to be concerned more about the enemy’s "innocents" than the heartbreak and devastation of kindred parents now without child. Parents can be filled with pride knowing their child has died saving a fellow countrymen. Having died to save an "innocent" enemy, many of whom, if given the chance, would slit the throat of our boys in a heartbeat, leaves parents empty.

It is fashionable among the egalitarian left in the West to not elevate any life over the other. Some even go out of their way to show more concern for others than their own as a way of proving their universality over tribalism. But choosing your own first is not only natural but constitutes true legitimacy. Before we take care of others, we must first take care of our family; similarly, the poor of your city come first. It is the moral duty of a nation, its armed forces, and those officials elected and empowered to send native sons to war to place an absolute primacy for their soldiers’ welfare over other considerations.

What constitutes a moral war was fixed long ago. Upside-down "compassion" for the enemy is not part of it. This zeal to keep raising the bar as to what constitutes "moral" conduct in war smacks of a desire to be "more-holy-than-thou," a form of egalitarian one-upsmanship. One would hope that the lives we daily live are sufficiently filled with moral majesty and nobility freeing us of finding new ways to verify our morality. Are we so insecure in our goodness that we have a constant need to show, ad absurdum, how moral we are?

Perhaps it is an overcompensation needed by those not fully convinced of the righteouness of our own national cause. For others, it is a way to retain the appearance of not being too "powerful." However, this is antithetical to the needs of a sovereign nation. For, in wars of survival, a nation must feel that its survival is more important than the enemy’s survival, and that concern for innocent citizens must first include its own citizen soldiers.

This "higher morality" is not biblical but, frankly, a peculiar form of self-worship, granting to its proponents and followers a sense of "being better." It is hubris. Its victims are our own soldier-children.

Listening to this constant "moral" boasting, one begins to think that wars are fought by America, Israel and the West not so much to be won but to show how moral we are.

Now that America and Israel are, apparently, no longer invincibile and assured of victory, it is time for military policy makers to drop this "higher morality" rule, given that far more, frighteningly more, U.S. servicemen’s lives have been snuffed out because of it. It is a form of self-indulgence we can no longer abide.

Being a "Light Unto the Nations" does not mean pacifism, nor does it mean recoiling from the notion of military "victory" and constantly insisting on 1960s-ish "peace and love." It means providing clarity, a clear-headedness rooted in reality. Choosing the course that is needed for the specific circumstance.

In Jihadist times, such as this, it means having the courage to identify evil and "eradicate the evil in your midst."

Proponents of the "higher morality" could do the world, the West, a service if they repudiated this dangerous and ludicrous notion that "our young soldiers must forfeit their lives so as to spare the lives of members of the enemy’s community." It has become one of the major impediments to our victory against Islamofascism. In fact, word has it that during the Clinton Administration, bin Laden was in the crosshairs of a bomb, but was left alone after a children’s swing set was found nearby. Our concern over collateral damage to the enemy resulted in the deaths of more than 3,000 of our citizens two years later.

Nothing is more sociologically silly and devoid of deep thinking than the equation claiming that unless we risk our own for the sake of the enemy "we are no better than them," somehow "racist," or "indifferent to life."

Those military brass who twist our soldiers from being fighting men to social workers should be fired. Those in the military that wish to be philosophers instead of real generals should become professors or clergymen and get out of the military. If they don’t have the stomach for real war and the criticism from the left, they should find another vocation. They have become a collateral damage to our security.

Millions of Americans are sickened by the unnecessary loss of young American soldiers trained to fight but sacrificed on the altar of political correctness. Those in the military more concerned with how our enemies feel about us — will they like us — than protected the American prople absolutely are betraying the American people and are AWOL.