No nation, in the history of the world, has ever fought a successful war with a disloyal opposition allowed to roam free at home. The successful conduct of any war requires political unity at home. When socialists and other disloyal individuals opposed American efforts in the First World War, they government did not hesitate to throw them in jail, nor did the people hesitate in thoroughly condemning all who expressed traitorous sentiments. In order to preserve the Union during the Civil War, President Lincoln did not hesitate in ordering the arrest of those who sided with the enemies of the Federal Government. Had some fools tried to march in Washington in the spring of 1944 with “Not in Our Name” placards, I’m quite certain that they’d have quickly found themselves somewhere unpleasant.

One of the primary reasons that America has had so much difficulty fighting long wars since the end of the Second World War is that the gentle nature of the average American has allowed them to be taken advantage of by certain elements within society which are opposed to American power and, in fact, utterly determined to destroy it.

Can you imagine if the same levels of “dissent” had been allowed in previous wars as allowed in this war? Could we have defeated Germany with millions marching in the streets for the Nazis? Could we have saved the Union if Lincoln had allowed those preaching disunion to move about freely as they pleased?

Now, some will say, you’re out to “suppress all dissent.” This plainly is not true. I’m out to suppress all “dissent” whose purpose is something other than to assure American victory in war. I believe in constructive criticism. In fact, I believe that it is essentially to any successful war effort. However, any fool can see plainly that the purpose of those who speak against the war, who nitpick its details, and who poke at every point, is not to bring about victory but rather to ensure it does not come to pass.

Are most of the people howling about prisoner “abuse” doing so because they’re afraid the abuse could hurt the war effort? Of course not. The abuses in question ended months ago and, in any case, were neither widespread nor particularly immoral given the identity of the “victims”. The people bringing this issue up aren’t interesting in seeing America win: they’re desperate to help America lose.

What about the people who moan over the casualties? Are they not sincere? Perhaps a few of them are. There are, after all, many stupid people in this world. But does anyone really believe that the average protestor on the streets insisting that they “support the troops” really give a damn about them except insofar as their deaths can be used to smear the President?

The people running this war have made a fair number of mistakes. Anyone can see that. Just as plainly, any fair person can also see that no war in history has ever been won without at least a few mishaps. The supposed war supporters who linger upon the mistakes have been made are like fans who after their football team has won a game 77-9 sit about brooding over the three field goals. Of course, if you’re a covert supporter of the losing team, then it makes perfect sense that you would fix upon every negative.

We have come to the point where believing in American victory and opposing it are seen merely as different shades of politically opinions, the same thing as the difference between being for a tax cut or against. They’re not. From the moment the first shot is fired there is only one position which a patriot can support: the total victory of the United States of America and the utter destruction of its enemies. Any deviation from this belief is treasonous and any word spoken against it is sedition.

We must accept this point totally. Freedom, if left unrestrained, provides for its own destruction. “Dissent” whose aim is anything other than American victory must be considered impermissible.

I upset some people a few weeks ago when I noted that one of the principle problems with the Vietnam War was not that an event like the shooting of four protestors at Kent State occurred, but that such events did not occur often enough. I stand by that statement. It cannot be that our soldiers are allowed to fight and die for our freedom while, at the same time, many of their supposed countrymen are allowed to openly align themselves with our enemies at no risk to themselves. Yes to Kent State, I say. Yes to a thousand Kent States, if the need be there. I’d rather see four thousand dead protestors than a single dead American soldier.

Sure, a few Vietnam protestors later went on to recant and lead decent lives. But not that many. Certainly far from a majority. If you look at all of the corruption which has spread throughout our society, it’s a fair bet that most of the individuals responsible have fond memories of waving VC flags and chanting in praise of Ho Chi Minh. I often think that our country, and the world, would be much better off if, at the height of the war in Vietnam, there was a patriotic Passover in which the Angel of Death passed over the land, smiting the traitors and sparing the patriots.

The success of the left in Vietnam has made treason mainstream. The average person believe that whether or not America should win is an issue which needs debating and on which reasonable people can disagree. This is an evil idea which must be purged from the world, even if the work must be done by the bullet and the bayonet.

In reality, this is a generational issue. We need to take the schools back from the left and once more teach the real story of America: of the great nation which conquered this continent and which has a profound destiny in the world. But, in the meantime, we shall have no choice but to resort to rougher methods.