There is No Substitute for Victory

There is No Substitute for Victory

© David Burton 2014

Know your Enemy

     The civilized world is today threatened by radical Islamic jihadists who are engaged in unparalleled human savagery. These jihadists go by various names – ISIS, al Qaeda, Hamas, Hizbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood – but, at their core, they are one – Islamic extremists who want to enslave the entire world and kill all who will not submit to their barbaric rule. While most of the atrocities currently being committed by these jihadists are taking place in the Middle East against Christians and Jews, “it is a threat that will undoubtedly come to the United States if it is left unchecked abroad.” (Ref. 1; Page 7)

     On September 11, 2001, al-Qaeda “flew passenger jets into the Pentagon and the World Trade Center . . . Nearly three thousand Americans died. Since September 11, thousands more Americans have died fighting jihad overseas, with tens of thousands wounded.
     “After all that loss, after all that expense, jihad is still spreading. Indeed, our own government threw away victory in Iraq and is on the verge of leaving Afghanistan to its fate. It is understandable if Americans are weary of thinking about war . . . But enemies do not fight on our timetable.” (Ref. 1; Page 13)

     We have no one to blame but ourselves for the situation in which we find ourselves today. We have allowed this threat to civilization to take root. “By late 2008, jihadists in Iraq were largely defeated, their leaders killed or captured, along with tens of thousands of their terrorist foot soldiers. . . . But . . . only six years later, ISIS is stronger than any jihadist group in world history.” (Ref. 1; Page 8)

     The liberal left continues to wear blinders when it comes to the Islamic enemy that we face. In a speech at Georgetown University, the newest darling of the liberal elite, Hilary Clinton, “said ‘smart power’ is using every possible tool and partner to advance peace and security.
     " ‘Trying to understand, insofar as psychologically possible, {and to} empathize with their perspective and point of view [Emphasis mine],’ Clinton said.
     " ‘Those words coming out of someone who intends to become commander-in-chief are not just naïve and utopian, it's irrational,’ {Lt. Col. Oliver} North said . . .
     " ‘Think about Dec. 7, 1941 and then FDR going to the Congress of United States the next day saying, 'We need to have more empathy for Japan.'
     "Think of Boko Haram. Think of James Foley being beheaded by ISIS, . . .” (Ref. 2)

     The most visibly violent jihadist organization in 2014 has been ISIS, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (sometimes referred to as ISIL, the Islamic State in the Levant). “ISIS jihadists commit violence against fellow Muslims in violation of Islamic law; they routinely commit war crimes and engage in torture in violation of international law; and they also kill and threaten Christian, Jewish, and other religious communities In short, ISIS is composed of religiously motivated psychopaths.” (Ref. 1; Page 27) While ISIS may be the current most publicized threat-of-the-day, we must not lose sight of the fact that ISIS is but one embodiment of radical and fundamental Islamic fanaticism. Just as the defeat of al-Qaeda and the killing of Osama bin Ladin did not end radical Islamic terror, the destruction of ISIS will not mark the end of the jihadist war of terror against the civilized world. Victory must mean the elimination of all radical Islamic terror – period!

     Make no mistake, the United States and the rest of the civilized world are at war with one of the most evil enemies in recorded history and there is only one way to conduct the battle against this unprincipled and ruthless foe – the fight must be carried to them and they must be destroyed! They abide by no rules of war – and therefore neither should we! Rules of war are for those who fight by these rules. Furthermore, there can be no halfway or timid approaches to fighting this war. We must conduct this fight with any and all means available. Negotiation with these monsters is futile and meaningless – they honor no agreements. Negotiations with radical Islamic terrorists are a non-starter. “. . . it is highly doubtful that anyone but the most naïve among us would believe that negotiations, led by the United nations or anyone else, are the proper way forward.” (Ref. 1; Page x) There can be only one acceptable objective and that objective is TOTAL VICTORY. Evil such as this must be met with overwhelming force – nothing else is acceptable. “When jihad is on the march, only overwhelming force can stop it.” (Ref. 1; Page 10)

     Jihadists claim that they are simply following the instructions of their Prophet, Mohamed as put forth in the Moslem bible, the Koran. In the Koran, we find the following: “[F]ight and slay the unbelievers wherever you find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war; but if they repent, and practice our way, then accept them. . . . You shall fight back against those who do not believe in God, nor in the Last Day, nor do they prohibit what God and His messenger have prohibited, nor do they abide by the religion of truth. {Koran 9.5, 29} They use injunctions like these as their justification to kill, rape, enslave and terrorize anyone who disagrees with their interpretation of the teachings of Mohamed and his Islamic adherents.

     “Millions of people embrace such injunctions as unquestioned commandments. . . .” (Ref. 3)

     To combat these murderers of hundreds of thousands people around the world, we have a number of leftist bleeding heart liberals who embrace the following concept of waging war against these extremist butchers:

     “First, we are told today that only so-called ‘proportional’ force is morally proper. We need to wage a ‘just war,’ one founded on altruistic moral principles, using strictly limited force, for strictly limited ends, aimed at the good of others. The well-being of others — including the enemy’s people — must be our concern, and this requires severe self-restraint on our part. That the enemy does not act this way when he kills our people is of no concern. According to these moral views, we must hold the well-being of others as an absolute, regardless of the consequences; we must be willing to place our soldiers in mortal danger in order to protect enemy civilians — even though they often aid and abet enemy fighters. A military offense for our own self-protection would transgress the bounds of a ‘just war,’ says the accepted wisdom.
      - - -
     “{In contradiction to these views,} History is clear: All-out force against fanatical killers is both practical and moral. It led us to our two most important foreign policy successes—the defeats of Germany and Japan in 1945 — and to the permanent peace with those nations that we take for granted today. Such a course was practical and moral then, and it is practical and moral now — an affirmation, and a defense, of life and civilization.” (Ref. 3)

     Failure to respond with overpowering force to attacks by Islamic extremists ultimately encourages and rewards them. In retrospect, the Obama administration and the pacifists of the world have granted Islamic jihad “a safe haven, allowed it to claim victory through continued existence, appealed to its apologists who spread anti-American venom, and emboldened those who wish to take up the fight against us. The solution is to renounce altruistic appeasement and pragmatic compromise, to recognize our own value, and to defend our lives by right. We must defeat these enemies, and we can. [Emphasis mine]
     “Only after we understand that we should defeat these enemies, can we ask how. This point is vital, for the question of moral rightness is logically and psychologically prior to any question of strategy or tactics. If we do not understand that we should defeat them — if we think that we are as bad as they are, or that they have legitimate grievances that justify their attacks, or that we have created a situation that morally demands that we compensate them — then our lack of moral self-confidence will undercut our motivation to fight. But the facts do not warrant such a conclusion. We are morally right and the Islamic Totalitarians are evil — not merely in their methods, but, more fundamentally, in their values and goals. We have a moral responsibility to defeat them — if we want to live. We can and must approach this war with the moral self-confidence of those fighting for civilization itself—for the basic conditions on which human life depends — because that is precisely what is at stake.
      - - -
     “The Islamic Totalitarian movement has a . . . fire burning at its core — an authoritarian, state-centered religion, replete with state-funded educational indoctrination, a massive suicide cult on behalf of the deity and state, and hope for a final battle over the Americans {and all other ‘non-believers’}. The key to extinguishing this fire . . . is to do what was done against Japan: to break the political power of the state religion. State Islam — Totalitarian Islam — rule by Islamic Law — must be obliterated. [Emphasis mine]
      - - -
     “Totalitarian Islam, an ideology that merges state power with religious belief, must go. [Emphasis mine]
      - - -
     “America needs a Commander-in-Chief today who can understand and state this simple truth: In war, there is no ‘right’ to free speech on behalf of an enemy. The string of obviously false, contrived, and manipulated ‘news’ by the supporters of jihad — the staging of civilians crying when a home is destroyed, and the throwing about of children’s dolls when a terrorist’s safe house is wrecked — are all part of the enemy’s war effort. In war, the psychological disarmament of the enemy, including the inculcation of terror through vicious propaganda, is part of the fight. American unwillingness to quash such propaganda is seen, by our enemies, not as respect for freedom of speech, but rather as a lack of will and as evidence of weakness. . . . .
      - - -
     “This is not a clash between civilizations; it is a clash between civilization and barbarism. Until civilized people assert themselves with a depth of moral confidence exceeding that projected by those who submit to the ‘will of Allah,’ America will remain permanently on the defensive, in a state of moral dhimmitude, and the war will continue to its logical conclusion: a mushroom cloud over America. (Ref. 3)

     As General MacArthur said in his 1951 farewell speech to Congress. "There is no substitute for victory!" There was a time when this was understood in America. In 1945, Americans knew that there was truly ‘no substitute for victory,’

     As President Franklin Delano Roosevelt stated ”We have learned that if we do not pull the fangs of the predatory animals of the world, they will multiply and grow in strength . . . [they] must be disarmed and kept disarmed, and they must abandon the philosophy which has brought so much suffering to the world.
      - - -
     “Americans, and all lovers of civilization, must realize something: We can do this. This is not some Platonic ideal, good in theory but unattainable in practice. We Americans can — and must — re-establish our integrity by re-uniting our ideals and our actions. History is on our side here. In relative terms, the physical forces facing America and her allies in 1941 were far more formidable than those we face today, and America then was far weaker militarily. In our own day, the technological and industrial superiority of the U.S. over the Middle East is staggering. Islamic warriors can shoot an AK-47, but they cannot build one; all of the arms possessed by Islamic countries come from outside those countries. They are pathetically weak; the American army ended the regime of Saddam Hussein in three weeks, after Iran could not beat him in eight years. Our overwhelming material advantage, however, will be of no help if we lack the will to drop a bomb — or if we use our forces to strengthen our enemies. . . .” (Ref. 3)

Winning the War

     America must commit to not just fighting Islamic jihad – instead, we must commit to winning the war against radical Islam.

     America must not telegraph to our enemies what we will do or what we will not do.

     It is up to the president to define the mission, give it to the military, let them do their jobs and not be an armchair-general and micromanage them.

     “. . . America must commit to destroying ISIS, not just ‘managing’ it or eliminating its influence {as President Obama advised}. To do so, we must support our true allies with arms, equipment, military advisers, and – if necessary – military power.” (Ref. 1; Page 92)

     “There is tremendous value in enlisting Muslim allies against jihad, allies like the Peshmerga in Kurdistan.” (Ref. 1; Page 29) “It is imperative that jihadists face strong Muslim opposition. (Ref. 1; Page 93)

     America should be supporting weak (and sometimes unsavory) governments in Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, Libya, Mali, Niger and elsewhere that are trying to fight al-Qaeda.

     “. . . when supporting our allies we cannot and must not begin by placing explicit limits on the use of our own military power. [Emphasis mine] We must commit to fight to win, and beginning any military effort by announcing explicit limits on our use of force or announcing explicit time limits on the length of our commitment merely provides the enemy with a roadmap to victory. [Emphasis mine] While large-scale ground combat may not be necessary, we cannot lead our enemy to believe that he will never face American troops.” (Ref. 1; Pages 93-94)

     “. . . America must not treat Afghanistan like Iraq and abandon it to Jihad. We understand that Americans are weary of war, but our enemies are not. Wars do not end when we grow tired of fighting them. They end when our enemies are defeated. [Emphasis mine] (Ref. 1; Page 94)

     Paraphrasing what was said in an article by Steven Plaut (Ref. 4) are the following remarks: In responding to jihadist terror, there is no such thing as a “disproportionate response”. Our response must be overwhelming and decisive! Proportionate response is one that results in capitulation to the aggressors. The moral and legal responsibility for every “innocent” civilian killed or injured in the war against jihad terror rests squarely in the shoulders of the Islamic fanatics and their Western amen choruses. One cannot make peace by pretending that war does not exist. The only way to stop jihadist terrorism is to kill the jihadist terrorists. No terrorist has ever murdered anyone after he was killed.

     Finally, let us not forget General McArthur’s admonition, "There is no substitute for victory!"


  1. Rise of ISIS, Jay Sekulow, Howard Books; ISBN 978-1-5011-0513-5, 2014.
  2. Oliver North: Hillary Wrote Off Presidency With Statement, Greg Richter,, 4 December 2014.
  3. “No Substitute for Victory”: The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism, John David Lewis,, Accessed 9 December 2014.
  4. Some Lessons From The War With Hamas, Steven Plaut, The Jewish Press, Page 10, 5 September 2014.


  30 December 2014 {Article 209; Islam_16}    
Go back to the top of the page