'The fanatic is incorruptible: if he kills for an idea, he can just as well get himself killed for one; in either case, tyrant or martyr, he is a monster.'  —   E.M. Cioran (1911 — 1995)

Granted, the Rumanian—born aphorist, Emile Cioran, was an eternal pessimist but that dispensable trait in no way negates the validity of his philosophical conclusions.  Sometimes, it takes a tortured Soul to reveal certain realities the rest of us are unable to plainly state or are unwilling to confess.         

The time has now come for us to accept what some children already believe — monsters do in fact exist — but they are not hiding under our beds, they live among us, killing, destroying and mutilating.  Appeasement and dialogue have been used down through the centuries to placate these entities but, instead, accommodation only emboldens them and debate only nourishes them.  Both applications are fraught with adverse historical inevitabilities, have never proven successful and the fact that we continue down the same well—worn path to failure shows a distinct lack of logical thought, determination and intellectual honesty.

Fanatics as monsters, once identified, can not be underestimated.  They are a species unto themselves; smart, cunning and above all, ruthless — more than willing to also murder their own.  They are modern shape—shifters and clever chameleon killers.  First, they are wolves, showering down an indiscriminate rain of death upon Israeli towns and communities.  Next, with the help of the MSM, they are transformed into sheep, as they appeared in Qana and southern Beirut, shaking with feigned innocence and apparent virtuous sorrow.        
       
The problem for most of today's idealists is that they remain stuck in the deniability phase of this premise and have not yet reached the bottom line — acceptability.  It's almost as if they are stuck in the adolescent emotional phase of life (Dissociative Empiricism Syndrome or DES).  Some of us often wallow—about within the morass of our own fears, always waiting, never confronting, to see if something better may come along or if the exigency at hand might just right itself.  Others, shipwreck themselves, continually trying to draw to an inside straight (the more you fail, the closer you come to success), while all of their assets are systematically depleted.  More often than not; either scenario is a losing proposition.      

Around 6:20 am, on October 23, 1983, the fledgling fanatic killer—group, Hezb'allah, struck the U. S. Marines' Beirut barracks with a truck bomb consisting of 12,000 pounds of TNT.  Subsequent reports revealed 241 servicemen died, including 220 Marines, 18 Navy personnel and 3 Army solders.  It was the worst single—day death toll for the Marines since Iwo Jima in World War II.  With this heinous act, Hezb'allah Monster—at—Large and Director of Terrorist Operations, Imad Mugniyah, began his blood—soaked quest of victims, which to date has claimed more than 800 lives.
 
Immediately afterwards, President Reagan said, 'We will stay,' however, on 7 February 1984, less than four months later, amidst the lethal chaos of warring factions within Lebanon, he changed the American course of action by announcing the withdrawal of the remaining 1,400 U. S. Marines.  By eliminating an impracticable presence and dangerous distraction he was then able to concentrate on the larger and more perilous threat at hand — the Soviet Union — and as we know, this is now a history lesson.  In short — he killed the 800 lb. monster.
   
Other historical outcomes present future probabilities and solutions too.  The tactic of occupation armies fighting fanatics, who have embedded themselves within a general populace, although sometimes winnable, is fast proving to be an outmoded mentality.  As time goes by these butchers become more enlightened, quickly learning the value of public relations, manipulation and misdirection.  They have become mass—sociopaths, one and all, and thus exist without any remorse or guilt.  There are many among us though, who believe these creatures can co—exist with civilized society and join the human experiment.

Among the most notable of those to bubble to the surface of the philosophical millpond is Thomas P. M. Barnett.  Armed with impressive titles before his name, citations from the 'usual suspects' in the MSM and two books (The Pentagon's New Map and Blueprint for Action), Professor Barnett graciously shares with us his vision of the future for mass—man.  Simply put,

'globalization......will bring global peace!'

One can get behind some of his theories, including the 'China thing,' but the part where Islamic—Fascists will one day see a rational beacon of light and accommodate Western characteristics is highly dubious. The fact that countries such as Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Oman have had an open invitation to join the globalization club and for the most part, rejected it (rain—check not mentioned), is most revealing. As one of the unlearned, I believe this piece of the puzzle needs further articulation.  

Dr. Barnett readily admits that for 'Globalization IIII' to work,

"Labor, energy, money and security all need to flow as freely as possible from those places in the world where they are plentiful to those regions where they are scarce." 

The security part of the equation is the obvious weak link in Mr. Barnett's comprehensive work and thus, anyone who has read and embraced what Diogenes reportedly had to say about cynicism need not taste the Kool—Aid.  Another debatable assumption he seemingly makes is that globalization is pre—ordained.

At the very least, with detractors on both sides of the political spectrum, he offers—up an alternative hypothesis and who knows, with some tinkering here and there, maybe a workable long—term plan for Globalists and the like.  In the short—term, however, other solutions need to be implemented.

Recently, when Israel attempted to 'terminate' Hezb'allah in Lebanon, it employed strategies already twice used with initial success by U.S. forces against an existing 'government,' Iraq.  The opening salvos in Lebanon utilized the latest smart bomb technologies such as GBUs and JDAMs.  Drones and other such state—of—the—art American ordinance were also exploited.  This phase of that war can be classified as 'remote aggression.'

After specific targets of opportunity were engaged and neutralized from afar, ground troops were provisionally inserted into particular conflicted areas of opportunity.  Call this stage 'concise engagement.'  RACE (remote aggression, concise engagement) is a workable strategy when applied to an existing sovereign nation, replete with a necessary infrastructure and standing army.  After all, what is a country without fundamental support systems and adequate protection?  As proven though, it was not the correct course of action that should have been used against an extrinsic force hiding amongst a coerced general populace.

Embedded terrorist forces cannot endure without support and sustenance from some additional body and/or existing State.  The objective is still the same, to place monsters on the extinct species list, but the route to that goal has to be abridged (lex parsimoniae —  law of succinctness).  To neutralize terrorist thugs, their enablers have to be 'sanctioned' (drastic terminal action) and if we are not willing to implement that viewpoint then the status quo of the Middle—East will continue unabated.  Admittedly, this greatly raises the ante and is not without potential pitfalls, however, in light of interminable global terrorism, it is a calculated risk worth serious consideration.

Mutterings from the usual suspects would be heard, no doubt, but then the Left would be relegated to opposing a fight against terrorist puppet—masters and those complicit for the confirmed deaths of 2,973 people on 9/11.    

In the meantime, while much of Islam sits by and debates whether or not to take a giant step into the 21st century, a nagging question still remains: Can monsters learn to live peacefully among civilized people?  If you accept Cioran's assertion, 'fanatics are incorruptible,' then the answer is rather obvious.  Liberals, on the other hand, with their pseudo non—exclusionary mentality and lemming—like rush to embrace the sometimes, self—placed 'disadvantaged,' look upon human fiends as a few young naïve women look upon their loser—for—life boyfriends — if given time, just one more time, understanding, benevolence and discussion will win the day.  Is there any doubt?