Friday, December 28, 2007

The New Way Forward, 11 Months Later

Less than a year ago, I outlined at least 10 aspects of The New Way Forward that provided hope for victory in Iraq.

While many were focused exclusively on one aspect of the plan, The Surge in troops, the whole plan, The New Way Forward, showed much more promise in its comprehensive nature and deserved thorough analysis.

Eleven months later the facts on the ground in Iraq show the indisputable success of a plan well conceived and executed.

So what were those 10 points and how have they achieved such stunning success?

First, we changed the rules of engagement in Iraq. Small unit leaders were given the necessary permission to act as best they saw fit. Our outstanding young NCO’s and Officer’s enacted true counterinsurgency tactics, made the right decisions, and succeeded. We were finally allowed to engage all insurgents and terrorists.

The New Way Forward also set out to address the turmoil created by Iran. We have pursued their operatives inside Iraq. We focused on interdicting their armament shipments. We have sent the diplomatic message that their interference would not be tolerated. We isolated the militias they were trying to support.

Third, the plan called for Iraq’s neighbors and regional influencers to realize their stake in a peaceful Iraq. We have tried to reinvigorate the Middle East peace process and pursued ongoing diplomacy with Iraq’s neighbors, achieving at least limited success in this area.

Fourth, The New Way Forward was conceived in large part by those in the military who saw this as a fight we needed to and could still win, those who would be called upon to implement it. No one can dispute that General Petraeus has executed the plan brilliantly. No one can dispute the skill with which our troops have accomplished what so many defeatists thought impossible. Not only are they winning the fight, they continue to believe they will prevail, reenlisting to fight through to victory at record levels.

The President had to convince Prime Minister al Maliki to address all militias in Iraq. If an end to the sectarian violence was to be reached, all antagonists must be dealt with. That included Muqtada al Sadr. Albrecht Muth succeeded with Sadr. Uncooperative militias have been dealt with and cooperative ones have become part of the solution for peaceful neighborhood policing.

Sixth, the new strategy called for acceleration in the training and development of Iraqi Security Forces. That has happened. Iraq’s security forces continue to operate more and more independently. There is still some degree of reliance upon the Coalition, but their proficiency has absolutely helped with the force to space ratios and in establishing the improved conditions.

Seventh, the plan focused our troops where the most violence was. The metrics from Anbar and Baghdad are staggering in their turnaround for peace. Anbar is now almost the safest place in Iraq and Baghdad is on its way. We have chased Al Qaeda and all troublemakers from those areas and done something we’d not done before, continued to pursue and crush them every placed they’ve fled. We were successful with the first step in counterinsurgency warfare, security for the people.

Benchmarks were set for the Iraqi government to which they’ve fallen short. But reconciliation at all levels below the national has occurred and lent itself to the peace. Despite the shortfalls of the national government, the Iraqi people have moved forward.

Ninth, the Administration continues, through diplomatic trips by the Secretary’s of State and Defense, to insure the Iraqi’s understand that at all levels they must be willing to stand strong and soon address all of their own problems.

Lastly, the force to space ratios which had been needed were met and tactics changed to reflect sound counterinsurgency strategy, allowing us to address Anbar and Baghdad while exploiting the opportunity which was presented with the Anbar Awakening and the subsequent spread of reconciliation through the country.

I also questioned a year ago whether we would let defeatists like Chuck Hagel and John Murtha convince us to cower and run home, or would we truly support our troops to victory and bring greater insurance of security for our country by being a bold, victorious world leader?

Enough Americans have stood with stalwart leaders like Senator’s McCain, Cornyn, and Lieberman and prevented the defeatists from winning in Washington D.C. Previously skeptical critics have now become advocates for victory. Even John Murtha, although not fully in the victory camp yet, has said what we’re doing in Iraq is working.

Now will the others come around, or will they continue to advocate for the death of a winning strategy in Iraq?

The Patriot Meets The Architect

On a recent trip to Washington D.C. I met Karl Rove aka "The Architect" and had a chance to visit with him. What stood out the most from my time with him is the sincerity of his appreciation for the troops and all we've done. It was clearly genuine, emotional support for all we've sacrificed and accomplished.

Thursday, December 27, 2007

Why Weren't We Fighting This Way All Along?

It would be interesting to know why the strategies and tactics we learned prior to deploying to Iraq in early 2004, the very same ones that are achieving so much success now, were not being fully utilized from mid-2004 through 2006.

What happened then to impede the execution of sound counterinsurgency strategy and progress in Iraq? “Impeded” is the optimum word here, not “prevented.” Had none of the counterinsurgency actions been taking place, Iraq would have been far worse.

The success achieved in Tal Afar long before the New Way Forward and The Surge is a good example of leaders at subordinate levels doing well to implement known counterinsurgency strategies, despite any floundering taking place around them. Many a squad leader, platoon, company, battalion, or even regimental commander did well to move the process forward. They were the glue that held the country together for two and half years.

On the other hand, had full blown counterinsurgency strategies and tactics been implemented then as they are now, we likely would have seen the present success two years ago.

Questions and analysis of the disparity between what was known and trained for and what was directed is intended here in the military sense of after action improvement, the process by which we become better war fighters. (Sadly I concede that any attempt to question previous shortcomings in order to improve our military is likely to be spun into political fodder.)

For example, as a mobilized reserve Marine infantry battalion, we underwent 1st Marine Division’s whirlwind training regimen prior to deployment. We accomplished in 30 days what normally took place over the course of about 3 months.

That training included counterinsurgency tactics for unit leaders at all levels within the battalion, highlighted by a full blown, nearly week long exercise in SASO (Security and Stability Operations) aboard a large abandoned housing area at March Air Force Base, complete with an entire cadre of Iraqi role players and insurgents.

The training was led by those Marines who had been successful in the early parts of the Iraq war, others who were experts in counterinsurgencies, as well as British and Australian officers who had experience in this kind of fighting from other places in the world.

The package that General Mattis put together prepared us well for what lie ahead, including his motto “No Better Friend, No Worse Enemy” which summed up how we were to interact with the Iraqi’s and insurgents.

Within our battalion was also historical knowledge of previous counterinsurgency campaigns. The lessons of Vietnam, the Philippines, and even Lawrence of Arabia were not lost to us. In fact, much required reading and study had taken place long before our activation.

The deployment to Iraq started with our implementing what we’d studied and trained for. And we were successful. In fact, so much was being achieved during the early stages, eager young officers and NCOs were pulling to move quickly to the next levels and repeat the achievements of previous counterinsurgency operations.

Our outstanding young Marines were making it happen. It was an incredible opportunity to see them take all they’d been trained to do and execute it in a real world scenario. They were the Iraqi’s best friends and the worst enemy of all who stood in the way.

But then Fallujah happened in the spring of ’04. And then the money for reconstruction was held up and then re-released with burdensome strings attached. And then missions and directives from higher headquarters inconsistent with history and training started coming down. And the fight turned into something not completely consistent with what we’d trained to do.

It was not a derailed train, but it was slipping on the tracks instead of charging full speed ahead.

When speaking to others who were there from that time through 2006, much of the same is revealed in their experiences. They’ve shared many success stories, but some of similar frustrations as well. We could have always used more troops, but would numbers have mattered given the tactics and strategies being used?

None the less, the progress we made seemed to chug along at a pace not wholly inconsistent with the inherent difficulties of a counterinsurgency campaign.

But the last 12 months have given us something with which to compare the period from ’04 through ‘06.

With the success of The New Way Forward, The Surge, and the rapidity at which General Petraeus has changed the very face of the fight and the country, the comparison and hindsight show just how off-target from sound counterinsurgency strategy we were for two and half years. And we must beg the question “why?”

As War Critics Change Views, Focus Turns to a Political Solution at Home

Another previous war critic became a public supporter for victory in Iraq this week. In doing so, he highlighted the need for Congressional lawmakers to set aside differences and find a way forward in this war.

Retired General John Batiste had, until this last weekend, been an open critic of the war in Iraq, receiving much publicity in his criticism of the war. Although not to be wholly lumped in with the “cut and run” camp, he was certainly not a catalyst for victory either.

Now he, like John Murtha the week before, has come forward with a not so critical perspective. The truth about the successful surge in Iraq continues to reclaim those who had not been hopeful in this war.

Last Saturday General Batiste co-authored an opinion piece in the Washington Post with Vets For Freedom Executive Director Pete Hegseth outlining the need for perseverance in this Long War and the need for Congress to become united in the cause for victory.

Thank you to the General for standing for victory.

In the column, Batiste and Hegseth make a very strong case for rallying Americans to five fundamental tenets: U.S. success is imperative in the fight against Islamic extremists, Iraq is the central front in that fight, the Petraeus plan is the right plan and is working, our strategy must also address Iran, and lastly, our military must grow and change to fit our national strategy.

Highlighted in the column were the open reconciliation between two who had been on opposing sides and an emphasis on finding common ground in order to focus our energies on America’s long term national security interests.

They called on Congress to have the courage to do the same.

That brings us to the fight as big as the one in Iraq itself, the fight in Washington D.C.
Much is made of the need for political reconciliation in Iraq. It is probably needed more in Washington.

The surge in Iraq is clearly achieving success, some of it beyond even our greatest hopes at this time last year. Yet the success of the surge does not necessarily reflect success toward the “benchmarks” set for the Iraqi national government.

Some in Congress will be quite focused on those benchmarks during the funding fight coming in February or March. They would however, be in error, to ignore the success on the ground in Iraq, the reconciliation taking place among the Iraqi people and various religious groups, as well as the increasing functionality of local and lower levels of government.

Either reconciling the differences in political success among Iraq’s people with the shortcomings of Iraq’s national government or providing their government a pathway to success, a “political surge,” is the single biggest challenge we face over the next few months.

Ignoring success which is creating stability and achieving political reforms across the power base of Iraq, the people, simply because the Iraqi national government has been slow to move would be shortsighted and foolish.

The current trends around the country are creating the needed political solution. It just happens to not be evolving in the manner foreseen via the benchmarks.

Throwing out this success toward a political solution because it did not fit our predetermined method would most certainly be throwing the baby, the infant democracy in Iraq, out with the dirty bathwater of Washington politics.

During the next few months it will be imperative that leaders in Washington D.C. heed the calls of Pete Hegseth and John Batiste to find the courage to act in the country’s best interest, not a political party’s or that of a vocal minority.

The solution here at home and a way forward toward victory will obviously not come from those who have been adamant defeatists.

Although it may, there are doubts it will come from lawmakers who have stood unyieldingly resolute in the cause for victory, though their strength will continue to be imperative for victory. We should continue to stand with those who have been critical for our success thus far.

But we should also be ready to stand with those to whom the burden for finding a workable path toward victory is likely to fall, lawmakers like Senator Ben Nelson. Those leaders who have held a reasoned stand on the war, previously sought resolutions to partisan issues, and who understand the consequences of defeat in the war against Islamic extremists will be critical to this fight in the upcoming months.

Thursday, December 06, 2007

Congressman Murtha Admits Positives in Iraq

I had to look up the word “conniption.” I wasn’t sure how to spell it, but I’m sure that the likes of Code Pink, MoveOn, and other far left anti-war groups had a collective conniption fit last week.

One of their poster boys, John Murtha, quit toeing their line.

Surely what followed were the same fits of rage I’ve seen them have before.

In September at a Washington D.C. rally as Senator Joe Lieberman began to address a group of pro-mission vets and Gold Star Families, several members of the anti-war groups charged toward the stage with seemingly unrestricted fury, screaming with hatred, red faces, and flying spittle. Even as the police hauled them away, their venom did not subside.

Last week gave them another reason to become completely unhinged when Congressman Murtha visited Iraq and came back with a new view.

After a long run as one of the war’s most vocal critic he now says the surge strategy is working. He joined a growing list of previously critical lawmakers who see the undeniable positive developments in Iraq.

That can’t sit well with Code Pink or MoveOn who have counted on John Murtha to carry their Kool-Aid in Congress.

This summer and even into the fall when all metrics indicated growing and huge successes with the surge, Congressman Murtha remained absolutely adamant that it was not working.

At times he would fly off into tirades against those who saw and declared success in any aspect of the war. At one point he even let his emotions about the war override his senses when he publicly accused fellow Marines of cold-blooded murder at Haditha before an investigation was completed or charges leveled.

Now he says the surge is working.

We should welcome him back to reality with open arms.

Because the reality is that we are winning in Iraq and hope for the future has never been brighter with regards to the defeat of Al Qaeda there.

Congressman Murtha finally sees the truth of what’s happening. The surge is working, there is tremendous success in Iraq, but the national leaders still need to get their act together.

He should take heart with regard to the national leaders. As reconciliation continues at the lower levels, as has now been well documented by multiple parties, it will increasingly pressure Iraq’s national leaders to do the same and get their act together.

Needed pressure for reconciliation increased on the national level last week when, according to the Kuwait News Agency, a fatwa was issued by the leading Shiite cleric in Iraq, Ali Sistani, who “banned the killing of Iraqis, particularly the Sunnis, and urged the Shiites to protect their brother Sunnis.” During the meeting in which the fatwa was issued, Ali Sistani was quoted as saying, “I am a servant of all Iraqis, there is no difference between a Sunni, a Shiite or a Kurd or a Christian."

If national religious leaders can take that strong of a stand for all Iraqis, surely the political leaders are capable of doing so as well.

The counter-insurgency strategy of General Petraeus, the professionalism of our troops, their hard work, and the difficult risky stand taken by many Iraqis against the various terrorist and insurgent groups have all meshed to create the environment for success.

And John Murtha finally sees it.

The flip-flop bashers now need to leave him alone. He’s changed his mind based on the facts of the situation. Isn’t that how and why we want our lawmakers to change their positions? Too many times politicians change views for purely political reasons. Leave well enough alone on those occasions when politics takes a back seat to the truth.

However, two very visible questions remain on the political front here at home.

First, will Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi (whom reports say was furious with Murtha) quit playing politics with the war, finally concede that the surge is working, and reinforce success, or will they continue to play games, seeking our defeat for their own political victories?

Second, will the other Vietnam veteran to whom the left has often turned for quotes, sound bites, and solace, Senator Chuck Hagel, also concede that things are going well and finally support victory in Iraq, or will he continue to be the favored endorsee of Cindy Sheehan? If he were to finally admit success in Iraq and start voting for victory, he too would be welcomed back.

As Al Qaeda Shrinks, Focus Turns to Iran

As violence continues to drop and hundreds of Iraqi’s return home each day, a result of extinguishing the influence of Al Qaeda, many eyes are focusing on the negative impact of Iran’s involvement in Iraq.

With Al Qaeda’s violence waning, Iran’s meddling is increasingly sky-lined against Iraq’s reformation.

The capture of Iranian weapons and Quds Forces (Iranian Special Forces operatives) in Iraq is now well documented. Iraq’s residents have quickly become effective informants on the movement of these munitions and personnel. Coalition Forces have been successful in diminishing the impact of Iran’s intervention through these means.

But Iran’s relationship and involvement through Iraq’s militias is still creating instability.

Two large Shiite militias had been responsible, to a lesser extent than Al Qaeda and the Sunni insurgency, for sparking previous troubles. Al Qaeda started the problems and the Shiite militias escalated the violence as they sought to defend Iraq’s Shiite population against Al Qaeda.

One Shiite militia responsible for their share of trouble was the Jaash al Mahdi or JAM led by Muqtada al Sadr. Sadr is well known for his anti-Americanism and ties to Iran.

However, as part of “The New Way Forward” at least one diplomat was specifically assigned the task of working with Sadr to have the JAM stand down and bring cooperation between JAM and the Coalition Forces. Although it took some time, he succeeded and earlier this year Sadr agreed to do that very thing. The stand down of most of the JAM has helped curb the violence in Iraq, although splinter groups continue to be troublesome.

The second group is the BADR Organization formerly known as the BADR Army controlled by Iraq’s largest political party, The Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. Many leaders of this group spent years of exile in Iran during the reign of Saddam Hussein. The BADR Organization is thus very close to Iran.

Through BADR, Iran is trying to assert the most influence and the most violence.

The same diplomat who has been successful in working with the Sadrists believes that it is now BADR, not JAM, working directly with the Iranians for training and equipment.

BADR is suspected in the bombing of a Baghdad market last week. Subsequent arrests have now been made which also include the arrests of members of a “special group,” Coalition speak for those with direct ties to Iran. BADR is often associated with such forces.

Although both militia groups have been responsible for adding to the complexity in Iraq, as with so many current trends, there is reason for optimism with regard to their diminishing negative impacts.

In Shiite dominated southern Iraq, particularly around Basra, BADR has been somewhat of a thorn in the side of the Coalition as British forces have been turning over control to the Iraqi government. However, at this time “JAM is fully engaged with the top UK brass regarding stabilizing Basra” according to the same diplomat.

Having to concern themselves with one potentially hostile group certainly simplifies the situation for the Coalition forces.

There is a better sign, however, than this willing militia cooperation. That comes from the Iraqi people themselves.

Through the course of the last 6 months, the Iraqi people have been rejecting combatants and insurgents on all sides. On many occasions tribal and community leaders from all religions, groups, and sects have come together and rejected the violence being perpetrated by any antagonist. Accords have been reached which excluded all violent groups, including Al Qaeda and at times BADR and JAM.

They are doing the same with Iran. In a nearly amazing development, Reuters provided a story on the 21st about a group of Iraq’s sheiks who released a petition signed by more than 600 Shiite tribal leaders and 300,000 Iraqi’s condemning and rejecting Iran’s involvement in their affairs. Although both Shiite, the Arab Iraqi’s are rejecting the Persians who they say are guilty of "The most poisonous dagger stabbed in us, exploiting the Shi'ite sect to implement its evil goals, and planning to divide Iraq."

As has happened in so many parts of Iraq, the people are again rejecting a group which has shown that its interests are not solely focused on the Iraqi people, stability, and peace. The people increasingly seem to understand that they hold the key to their future and the power to influence what takes place in their country.

Coalition and Iraqi ability to diminish Iran’s influence will thus be achieved, not just through diplomacy and interdiction of Iran’s weapons and forces, but by continuing to foster the environment in which Iraq’s people reject Iran.

Supporting Their Mission Supports the Troops

I’ve always felt that those who said they “support the troops but not the mission” held an untenable position. Supporting the troops and their mission are inseparable.

That is especially true in the fight against Islamic extremists in Iraq. For the Islamic extremists to win their fight against us, they need Americans to lack perseverance in the protracted war they are more than willing to endure.

They need Americans who will shrink from victory. Their goal has always been to defeat the will of the American people, not defeat our troops in battle.

Thus, those who do not support the mission provide the enemy exactly the kind of morale boost he needs to continue his fight against us and our troops. As long as this enemy believes he can outlast the will of a majority of the American people, he will keep fighting.

Encouraging an environment in which our enemy’s resolve is steeled against our troops does not support the troops.

Now, with the undeniable success we’re having in Iraq, the “support the troops, but not the mission” position is becoming increasingly precarious. In fact, taking a position which encourages our enemy to keep fighting when our troops are achieving so much success in their mission against them is unjustifiable.

One mission of our troops has been to foster an environment where cooperation and reconciliation can take place among the different groups of Iraqi’s. Our troops are succeeding in that mission.

They have united the Iraqi people against both Al Qaeda and the Iranian influenced Shia militias.

The L.A. Times published a story this week, as so many others have over the last several months, about Sunni and Shia joining together to defend their local communities against militants on both sides. This column has chronicled many events where groups from all backgrounds in Iraq have been participating in “bottom-up” reconciliation.

Who can’t support our troops in that mission?

Another of our troops’ missions has been to drive Al Qaeda from Iraq.

Numerous stories over the last few months have detailed that very thing. Our troops, working with Iraqi forces and Concerned Iraqi Citizens have been relentless in their pursuit of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, reducing the terrorist organization to a mere fraction of what it once was.

Who can’t support our troops in that mission?

Another mission for our troops has been to eliminate the violence in Iraq fueled by militants and terrorists so that normal civilian life could once again take hold for the growth of the people and self governance.

The number of attacks against civilians is at its lowest point since early last year. Civilian deaths are down by 60% since June alone. Attacks are averaging less than 1 per day in many areas. Anbar province has become so calm that the Marines are starting to get bored. The sectarian violence has all but ended and recently Prime Minister Malaki declared the same for Baghdad.

Newsweek recently did a story about Baghdad coming back to life from the perspective of a journalist who has been there off and on for the last four and a half years. He now sees definite progress with durability. This week, Multi-National Forces – Iraq released a story about Baghdad schools reopening and the distribution of school supplies by our soldiers. Other recent stories have shared news of markets reopening and staying open late, amusement parks being attended, and people moving back to Baghdad.

Through the efforts of our troops working with Iraqi forces and citizens, a sense of normalcy is returning to many areas of the country, the kind of normalcy that allows for self-governance.

Who can’t support our troops in their mission to end the violence in Iraq sparked by the same terrorists who also plan our demise?

One goal of this counter-insurgency “surge” strategy has been to create an environment which is less risky for our troops. It is sadly unfortunate when our troops are injured or killed. The news of their deaths is very emotionally difficult for me. So, I am a firm believer in our troops having a mission which allows them to defeat our enemies with the least number of casualties.

Our troops have that mission with “The New Way Forward,” a strategy which has decreased the number of their deaths to the lowest point since October 2006.

When there’s a war to win, you need to support a mission which does that.

In every way, by every metric, our troops are succeeding in their mission. They are winning. Truly supporting them requires that we support them in these winning endeavors.

Religious Zealotry, Not Foreign Policy, to Blame

Those who believe that Islamic terrorist groups flourish in response to U.S. policies need to review this week’s news to see that Salafist beliefs and organizations are trying to impose their will throughout the world for their own reasons.

Simply put, the United States is not to blame for the existence of Islamic terrorist organizations or the hatred they harbor.

A world-wide movement exists among a minority of radical Islamists, not the world-wide Muslim population, who believe it is their obligation to force, impose, and enforce their interpretation of Islam upon the people of the world.

It’s not just the spread of Islam these terrorist groups concern themselves with. It’s the spread of their version (emphasis added) of Islam they believe in. Nothing less will be tolerated, nor will anyone who tolerates anything less.

In their eyes, all who do not follow their philosophies or who tolerate those who do not follow their philosophies are infidels worthy of destruction.

To them, not only are westerners, Christians, and all non-Muslims worthy of death, but so are other Muslims who don’t interpret the Koran as they do.

They have therefore declared enemies and attempted to proselytize by the sword around the globe.

They exist in the Philippines.

Bill Gertz reported this week on a briefing by Special Operations Command – Pacific on the status of the Al Qaeda affiliated group in the Philippines known as Abu Sayyaf. For several years Philippine and American special operations forces have been hunting members of this Islamic terrorist organization.

The extremists demanded action against Muslim nations in northern Africa this week.

Al Qaeda number two man Ayman al Zawahiri called for the overthrow of the leaders in Libya, Tunisia, Morocco, and Algeria.

These mostly Muslim, northern African countries do not practice Islam exactly as the terrorists believe it should be practiced. To their detriment they have also developed relationships with many other countries the terrorists view as “dogs, crusaders, and infidels,” which in turn makes them “slaves” who deserve punishment.

Although largely Arab and Islamic, they do not adhere to the Al Qaeda mentality and interpretation of Islam. They are therefore worthy of being overthrown and replaced by regimes which do.

In conjunction with Zawahiri’s calls came reports from the AP and Al-Jazeera that a terrorist organization from Libya, the Fighting Islamic Group in Libya, has joined ranks with Al Qaeda. Reuters had a story about terrorists in Algeria noting extremists from Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat. In an AFP report, Zawahiri also touted jihad by militants from these African countries against the United States, France, and Spain.

Radical Islamists exist in Pakistan.

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf took steps this week in his country, unfortunately acting anti-democratically, in order to confront the growing threat of extremism in his own country.

Pakistan’s proximity to so many radical groups, including the Taliban, refusal to nationally submit to a Taliban style belief system, and cooperation in fighting against terrorists has made Pakistan and Musharraf prime targets. This week he took actions he felt necessary to defend against them.

He did so in response to those groups growing in strength, their offensive against the government (including publicly beheading six Pakistani soldiers), and moving outside their traditional tribal areas into other parts of the country.

Pakistan has become yet another example of extreme Islamic militants acting violently against other Muslims who do not share the same radical interpretations and beliefs they do. The same has happened in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Somalia.

Bloomberg news also reported this week that Al Qaeda is recruiting British children to carry out attacks against their own country. The head of MI-5 stated that, “terrorists are methodically and intentionally targeting young people and children in this country.”

Recent history, not just this week’s news, proves the trend of a global network of Islamic terrorists who are set upon converting or killing anyone who disagrees with them.

Many nations throughout the world, regardless of religion or belief system, have now had to face the reality of Islamic terrorists who refuse to tolerate those who do not worship as they do.

The world-wide trends and threats are clear. Islamic terrorists are waging a jihad against everyone, not just the United States, who does not share the same religious beliefs as they.

It is foolish and short-sighted to believe that the policies of the United States alone cause them to exist.