The Answer

Call the following heroes to the White House in a super secret mode: Rob O’Neil, Marcus Luttrell and Dakota Meyer. Ask them to accept the role of forming a Top Secret unit formed from existing assets of the US Military and Intelligence Agencies with a mandate of destroying ISIS using whatever assets they need, with a “black” budget, cutting across existing service/command/agency lines, reporting directly to the President and doing everything in above Top Secret mode from now until mission is accomplished. No press briefings, no publicity whatsoever, no further proceedings of this unit disclosed to anyone and no visible signs of this unit to anyone without the specific permission of the President of the United States. No uniforms, no rank/insignia/organizational patches, no public identity of any kind and encrypted, portable, 24/7 communications directly to the President of the United States. As far as the world is concerned, this unit simply does not exist. Authority vested in this unit will come directly from the Commander-in-Chief, the President of the United States.

The Problem

We have to have a Commander-in-Chief fully committed to the destruction, not containment, of ISIS, who is knowledgeable concerning military strategies and will do what is necessary to confront this evil ideology. Do we have such a leader? Methinks not. Even the scenario which I pictured above, were it to be adopted as strategy, could not be publicized in any way. So, for now, it is relegated to a movie script or something similar and totally in the conceptual stage. I will say this, however, the individuals which I named above have proven their dedication, their ability and their capacity to serve as Commander-in-Chief.

Get AQ Email Updates


  1. It won’t be Hussein Obama, because IMO his loyalty is on the other side.

    It won’t come from Jorge Bergoglio either.

    Now he’s calling Christmas a “charade” and blames “arms dealers” for terrorism not the Muslims.

    These two are two peas in a pod, two pieces of crap, and two minions of hell!

  2. Poor Jorge, he just doesn’t get it. From the WT article: ““Today, Jesus weeps as well because we have chosen the way of war, the way of hatred, the way of enmities.” No Jorge, it’s the Islamist Extremists that have chosen the way of war; we are just trying to defend ourselves with little help from you, by the way.

  3. You see the evil confronting Christianity as ISIS. I see it as secularism. America, our own country, our own values, which we persist in calling ‘Christian’ even though it is not. You want our young Catholics to enlist in the fight against ISIS, which secularism is fighting for profits. For dominance in the Middle East.

    Please think about this one more time. You want to fight Islamicists. Fine, good. Raise your own army. Do not fight in the US army. We Catholics must fight the US army. Perhaps we must fight Islam at the same time. But in the name of God and in the sense of Archbishop Lefebvre, do not fight FOR the US.

    • With all due respect, Jan, we are all products of our environment and I come from a military background so I tend to view things from that perspective. In actual fact, I could have titled the post differently – like “Who will defend the US against Evil?” and used the crusades to illustrate the point but, the fact is there are people, our brothers and sisters in the Faith, being killed, tortured and beheaded in the name of a false religion. I believe we must fight that Evil with every fiber of our being. I understand your point that our own fascination with secularism sometimes makes us our own worst enemy. However, I cannot share your view that we should not fight “FOR the US.” Patriotism, properly applied, is a virtue not a vice and I believe Archbishop Lefebrve would view it the same way. Finally, the term US could easily mean us (small letters),”Soldiers of Christ” as proclaimed in our Confirmation and not just defenders of some country or other. But, whatever the meaning you wish to apply, I stand by my post and hope that some of our readers will share my point of view. For, in the final analysis, that’s all it is, my point of view. God bless.

    • Jan, name a country a Catholic can fight for. And if that country is an ally of the US, does that disqualify it, too? By your standard, then, Catholics shouldn’t fight in any country’s military anymore. That will be the day that Satan’s armies have enslaved us all.

      Shouldn’t we use our power to liberate people from the Mohammedans? We can argue all day about how evil Obama is, how bad officials export family planning and promote sodomy, how the banks and trans-national corporations profit. But real people are being really slaughtered.

      The US is the only military that can extend enough force to keep murderous Hordes at bay. The formerly Catholic Europe can’t because we mollycoddled them for so long, and they’ve spent their resources on handouts instead of arms. I suspect Russia and Germany are subsidizing the raghead invasion of Europe and hope to split the spoils. Then we’ll be alone. Francis will cry for help, but at that point, there won’t be much we can do.

  4. Cyprian and Phaley, I didn’t see your replies yesterday. Each is reasonable (by the way, my comment is only my point of view, too, of course), But one cannot use as an argument to apply the principle of patriotism that the archbishop would view it the same way. One needs an actual quote in which he does so. I would like to say of course he knew of the American heresy, since he fought it. But I cannot, because I don’t have one.

    Saying that we should use the US military to liberate the Middle East is more strategic–if we ourselves had a political base to resist the US military, once the other front was won. Only if that. If we have no political base, we will have fed our martyrs to a monster. In fact we already have. I have lost the citation but it is easy to find googling, our US military command took the role the judiciary has played here and ‘cancelled’ a popular vote against homosexual marriage in Iraq. We did that. The US military did that and is doing it everywhere they go in the world.

    Would you argue that the savagery of Islam is worse than homosexuality? Do you believe that more souls are lost in throwing a homosexual off a high building than are lost with the freeing of homosexuality among the population? Do you feel it is more savage to stone an adulterer or to live in a world that celebrates it? Do you think forbidding usury is less savage than trying to avoid it? (But you can’t–every buck we own is stained with it.) Do you think the burqa or hijab or whatever they are called are more sinful than the dress of the girls waiting for the schoolbus this morning in our land?

    Aren’t you really arguing that what we have here is preferable not only to us but to them and we are happy to fight in the cause of forcing it on them, to be able to say that we beat the ragheads just like the old days of Lepanto? When Lepanto was fighting for a Catholic state and Catholic morals and beliefs. (You know I am sorry to use that term and I am certain our missionaries, who came to my own people in America, never used any such language, and weep in heaven when those of us who call ourselves Catholics use it and other racist and heretical, yes heretical, terms.)

    My comments react to that underlying sentiment. It’s just wrong. Our way of life is so hateful to the world that they will let ISIS rather than suffer it. Our way of life is empty. Our political tolerance of divorce and abortion and contraception calls out for us to lose Lepanto this round. Maybe that’s my most powerful argument: we can’t win against Islam, under this flag and under these colors. We may have the most powerful armies, and they are losing. Unless you really want to bomb whole sections of the earth into dust.

    I only propose this: love our country enough to build an independent party that denounces our secularism and aims toward a Catholic state. That is not impossible. We have leadership capable of doing it if they will come off the conference circuits and book signings and the twitter feeds long enough to do it. Love our country enough to amend our constitution (and our sinful ways). It would probably take a coalition with protestants–and perhaps Muslims. That means a two-step platform, and that is not unknown in history at all–just read the very many alliances over the long history of France, England, and Scotland as each country aimed toward goals that were supra-national, as in preferring the Stuarts in that long struggle, for example.

    But we aren’t doing that, we aren’t aiming toward that, we seem to be saying in every post, support America first, then build something better second. We did that in the anti-communist movement and what did we gain by it? Our families are poorer now. A LOT poorer. We work harder–millennials work like slaves at Amazon and have less than a thousand bucks in assets, total. And let’s not even talk about what has happened to church attendance since–it’s not all Vatican II’s fault. And of course there’s the whole morals thing, which will close our churches one by one as pastors give in to sodomy. It will be just like the Church of England. In fact it’s a replay of the same.

    The strategy of allying with the US and postponing a refinement of our own position has failed. We must have a third party and a goal to turn this country away from secularism.

    And that will de-fang Islam most of all. That is the way to undercut their appeal to the youth of the world. To fight our own sins. To return the US and Europe to Christendom. It really is our only way forward. To work ourselves into a frenzy flinging racist terms about and denouncing Islam accomplishes absolutely nothing, certainly nothing manly. Nor was it a feature of the Crusades, which treated the enemy with respect, with Christian chivalry, if the history books recount those battles truthfully.

    Thank you for the courtesy in your replies. I too respond with all due respect, and risk offending to add a blurb for my phi sci fi novel Run that has Muslims and Catholics cooperating to escape from secularism; if you didn’t already go see its website, please do, at malapertpress.wordpress.com

  5. We obviously disagree, Jan, but I will say his about what I perceive as an attempt to drive an ideological wedge between myself and the Archbishop. I didn’t know the Archbishop personally and never had the privilege of having met him. What i know is what I’ve learned from persons who were very close to him, That said, I think he would have looked at the motives of anyone who would take up arms against another. The motives of those who would defend the rights of those who profess loyalty to the one true God and the innocent who worship Him are IMO pure and undefiled. Secondly, with respect to those who hate our country and choose to live under what I perceive as another form of Racism, I would say that is their right but it doesn’t make them right. The millions who are clamoring to enter our country give testimony to the fact that much is to be gained living in a land of liberty than otherwise. My military service was to defend, not impose, and I object to anyone characterizing it as otherwise.

  6. Jan wrote Would you argue that the savagery of Islam is worse than homosexuality?

    Good grief. Jan, we don’t get to the issues of military force that way. It’s about those who are getting slaughtered right now. Should we take your approach, we assign them martyrdom. That doesn’t do much for them, watching their sons and daughters blood spill. But that’s OK for them because some bad folks in the US promote sodomy??

    Revisiting your question: Compare your response to receiving news that strangers were passing down your street if, a) they’re queers, or b) they’re rag heads with machine guns on Jeeps. The latter is exactly what your counterpart in Syria faces. Would you tell a US soldier to go away because his CO is a faggot? That’s fine for you, but the Syrian might prefer the US soldier.

    We must do the best with what we have and strive to place better people in charge. We can complain about the rapaciousness of the banks, but imposing a distributist (socialist) order overnight will result in the starvation of millions. (There are ideologues who will feel better, of course.) Likewise, for want of a more perfect military, we’ll let a Satanic cult literally crucify women and children. We don’t stand down when there is hope for the better.

  7. What a tragedy that our Holy Catholic Religion has been sullied by adopting the contraceptive mentality (widespread promotion of NFP as virtue). We urgently need to restore the primacy of the procreative end of marriage and start having more children. In the meantime, the events in Europe are demonstrating that peaceful coexistence with Muslims is problematic, which I believe Archbishop Lefebvre learned from his missionary experience in Africa.

Leave a Reply