Middle East Fighting and Killing

“War means fighting, and fighting means killing.”

— Nathan Bedford Forrest

At the risk of being redundant, General Forrest could have added, “…and dying.” He also neglected the war profiteers, for whom he could have added, “…and an abundance of money and power for those not involved in the fighting, killing, and dying.”

Whether one considers it just or not, every time the United States government intervenes militarily in the Middle East, there are many people in and around the District of Columbia who smile, pump their fists, and rub their hands together. For they know that our constant and never-ending presence in the Middle East will make them wealthier. These people, themselves, sure as hell won’t be doing any of the fighting and killing, mind you, nor will their families. It’s not worth all that to them. But they will gladly assist in sending us, and our sons and (yes, because this is a thing now) daughters, and not lose a wink of sleep over it.

I have been a conservative non-interventionist since Pat Buchanan changed my mind about the first Gulf War in 1990-91.  He later wrote, “I did not believe Kuwait was vital to the United States or the emir’s regime was worth the life of a single marine.”

Examining the ultimate cost of war, I feel we are being disingenuous if those trumpeting further acts of aggression that could lead to war do not deal honestly with the ramifications. My standard question for all who advocate further acts of war (and assassinating a foreign leader is most certainly an act of war) is, ultimately: Would you be willing to go stand on the front line? Or, would you be willing for your children or grandchildren to be on that line? If this matter is really worth killing and dying over, you first. For if you are not willing, I cannot see the morality of sending others’ sons and daughters to do it (voluntary service or not).

Allow me to express it plainly. There is nothing going on the Middle East that is worth the life of my children (or any other American’s). 

Another question I like to ask the “Let’s Whoop ‘Em!” crowd, who justify further presence, intervention, and aggression in the Middle East on the basis that we are “taking out bad guys”: If this is about removing evil people from the world, why are we selective with it? Are there no evil people in Antartica? How about Chad? The Netherlands? Do Iraq, Iran, and the latest Muslim brotherhood crew have the monopoly on evil? Why do we never target Saudi Arabia, arguably the largest sponsor of terrorism on the face of the planet and whose king, Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, is a murderous monster of unspeakable barbarity? Why do we make deals with him, wink at his reign of treachery, and call him an “ally”? 

I think the answer to that is evident to any disinterested observer really paying attention.

Indubitably, there are plenty of evil people right here on our shores. The United States government is overflowing with them. Why don’t we “take them out,” if we are to believe this is seriously about good and evil?

The audacity is astounding. If I were to poll the average American regarding the intentions of the U.S. government on domestic policy, I strongly feel the majority would agree that the best interests of the citizenry were not truly contemplated. Yet, when it comes to foreign policy, somehow we are to trust that the same government that sanctions and imposes infanticide on its subjects is going to, in an extraordinary transformation, cross the ocean and suddenly become a beacon of hope, a benevolent and “stabilizing influence” on Middle Easterners. 

Let’s face it folks. Evil governments are despotic at home and abroad. Evil doesn’t shed its skin by flying over water.

Meanwhile, here in our own country, illegal immigration continues mostly unabated. The Trump administration recently “celebrated” the one hundredth mile of a “border barrier” across our bleeding border with Mexico. Three years in office, and Trump is celebrating one hundred miles of 30-foot beams (which video circulating on social media and verified by the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol shows is being scaled by immigrants using ropes and ladders). This across a border that presses on two thousand miles. At this rate, perhaps beams will cover roughly ten percent of the border by the time Trump leaves office in 2025. VICTORY!

What if we took the astronomical amount of soldiers, money, and resources we squander meddling in  “Islamodrama” and used it to defend an actual invasion occurring under our very eyes on our Southern border? Is that not in the national interest?

Lest I be confused with a pacifist, let me use one instance from history that demonstrates my belief in war and a time to kill.

Had I been alive when my Southern ancestors and our land were invaded in 1861, I would have prayed to God for guidance and determinedly grabbed rifle, pike, and sword and killed as many soldiers in blue I saw coming at us as I possibly could. And, yes, I would have put forth both my sons if they were fighting age (unless I thought it best to leave one with his mother and sister to defend our homeplace, since that same army had no qualms about also waging “total” war on women and children). I would have had no hesitation in adopting General Stonewall Jackson’s strategy to “give them the bayonet” and “kill them…kill them all.”

Alas, that war is over (although the issues from it remain). I again stress that I use it in this context simply to make a point that, although no Middle Eastern country has ever posed a threat to me and mine, and has never invaded my land, there is one country that has. Coincidentally, it is the same one we are now being asked to trust in playing the unwinnable game of “Who’s the Better Muslim” that has raged in the Middle East since time immemorial. That is a game in which we have no business. 

Josh Doggrell

Josh Doggrell

7 Responses

  1. Robert Peters says:

    Mr. Doggrell, you captured my sentiments exactly. A few weeks ago, I found myself in a conversation with some folks at supper. The topic of the “Civil War” and its shadow slavery came up. After listening to the back and forth and the placating, I said, “We were invaded; a patriot – be he slave owner, sheep herder or candle stick maker – defends his country when it is invaded. The invaders reasons or alleged reasons do not mitigate the patriots duty to defend his country, which means engaging, killing and destroying the invader. That applies to any invader and to any patriot. The globalist elites who have long since hijacked the U.S. government are everywhere the invaders and need to get what invaders deserve. I do regret that we Southerners are yet and still the willing Janissary of the very factions which “drove Ol’ Dixie down.” Our martial nature and sense of loyalty have been usurped by our enemies. Would that we would awaken!!!

  2. Josh Doggrell says:

    Mr. Peters,

    I am truly appreciative of your sentiments. They brought to mind a conversation I had with Dr. Fleming six years ago where I picked his brain about what we should actually DO about the state of societal decline in which we find ourselves. He offered keen insights on doing our utmost to live well and work hard on being a positive influence over the spheres of life God has granted us.

    The US government is continuously auditioning for the role of the next Middle East Boogeyman. And these “auditions” are a farce. The designated role is always based upon (dubious) qualifications that will produce endless warfare, salacious propaganda, new opportunities for war profiteering, and great distraction to the citizenry, whose emotional involvement pushes them to solidarity against said boogeymen while evil runs amuck right here in those spheres of influence each individual has been granted.

  3. Harry Colin says:

    An exceptional piece, Mr. Doggrell. I concur with every word, indeed every punctuation mark!

    It has always embittered me to watch politicians who had obtained for themselves enough deferments to wallpaper my house during their own draft-eligible years suddenly become hyper-belligerent warfighters once in power.

  4. Josh Doggrell says:

    Mr. Colin, thank you. It’s heartwarming to know one is not alone on such an important matter.

  5. Kellen Buckles says:

    Mr. Doggrell,

    I do agree with your argument in general. We need to bring the troops home. We are not a nation of virtue. But the implied criticism of the killing of Gen. Suleimani being an act of war begs the point: we ARE, rightly or wrongly, in a war already and the general has been a leading killer of our people. Until we extract ourselves from the bloody mess we have to defend ourselves.

    As for the Saudis of course it’s galling that we find ourselves allied with the devils. But whether we like it or not it is a fact that the US will be engaged around the world long after we are dead. Without Saudi support for Pres el-Sisi, the Muslim Brotherhood would be slaughtering the Copts unhindered. I’m no crusader but the situation is more complex than you allow. What we should (at least) do about Saudi Arabia is realize that they are not our friends, shutdown the Wahhabi mosques in the US, and stop allowing Muslim immigration (in general).

  6. Robert Reavis says:

    Here is a little bone from Burke for our anti intellectuals posing as political commentators and statesman :

    “What is liberty without wisdom and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness, without tuition or restraint.”
    But one thing about contemporary American and English intellectuals (“two-bit positivists”is how Russell Kirk accurately described them ) is that even if they wanted to know or do better, they lack a clear understanding of those intellectual traditions that would provide them a way. So yes “whether we like it or not we will remain engaged over there” long after the Vietnam dodgers and deferments have all expired.

  7. Josh Doggrell says:

    Kellen Buckles,

    It appears we agree the assassination of a foreign leader is an act of war. I would like to use that agreement to ask another pertinent question: Since Korea, why does the U.S. government specialize in “halfway wars”? If war (fighting and killing and dying) is justified, why do we not treat it as such and wage a full-scale campaign? My father taught me as a young man that I should avoid fighting if I can, but if a fight comes, there is no such thing as a fair fight nor any reason for holding back. Hit fast and hit to kill. If war is justified, let’s win it, and the quicker the better. If it is not…what, exactly, are we doing? The idea of pumping the brakes or dilly dallying when it comes to war is asinine.

    You are correct that the killing of Americans complicates this issue, and demands some type of action. But I still say the ramifications have to be weighed. And the best way to keep Americans from being killed in the Middle East is to not have Americans in the Middle East.

    If we are “allied with the devils,” surely, if we are Christians, we MUST extricate ourselves from that situation. To attempt to wash our hands of it by conceding “whether we like it or not it is a fact that the US will be engaged around the world long after we are dead” is unacceptable. I cannot fathom defending my support of evil at the Great White Throne with such logic. Taking sides in the Middle East wickedness of “Who’s the Better Muslim” is something in which we should have no business.

    I do appreciate your comments. Dialogue on this issue is important.