Speaking of Monsters...

Retired U.S. Col. Ralph Peters has written an essay calling for military attacks on journalists. Writing for the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), Peters calls the media "a hostile third party in the fight ... killers without guns," and writes, "future wars may require censorship, news blackouts and, ultimately, military attacks on the partisan media. ... The point of all this is simple: Win. In warfare, nothing else matters. If you cannot win clean, win dirty. But win. Our victories are ultimately in humanity's interests, while our failures nourish monsters."


Let's see if I understand the reasoning here. Ret. US Col. Ralph Peters says that the purpose of war is to win. He also declares that whatever war the United States becomes involved in is a war in which it is necessary to "win" in order to insure "humanity's welfare." Without exception. In all wars involving the United States, there are no doubts that victory is the only option and that anything short of total victory (such as a negotiated peace agreement) would "nourish monsters." It may be necessary to behave in a monstrous manner in order to achieve this total victory. But being a monster is not the same as nourishing monsters. In fact, according to Peters, we can be both monsters and not monsters at the same time. Anything goes. The ends justify the means. Do as we say, not as we do. And all that are good ideas according to Peters. Is this guy for real?

Mr. Peters is absolutely right. When I'll declare my war on stupidity and idiocy, he will be on the top of my 'to hit' list.