Written 11 August 08
Although the improvements in Iraq have caused the war to slip from news prominence right past news worthy to downright ignored, it’s still necessary to remind ourselves of the progress being made by our troops and the Iraqi’s.
The Brookings Institute recently provided a good source of information on the long-term trends in Iraq.
July saw the lowest number of civilian fatalities since May of ’03 and the lowest number of attacks since the spring of ’04.
Multiple fatality bombings have dropped from about 69 with 1600 killed or injured in January, 2007 to 18 last month with about 600 killed or injured.
Indicative of the trend we’ve seen with Iraqi’s of all backgrounds stepping to the plate to take charge of their own future, 103,000 Sons of Iraq and Concerned Local Citizens are currently active in the sanctioned protection of their neighborhoods.
The uncovering of weapons caches typically depends upon the sense of security civilians feel and their willingness to then report suspicious activity and associated caches. The number of weapons caches we’ve exploited increased from 1,711 in 2004 to 6,969 in 2007, and is already at 5,667 for 2008.
U.S. casualties which were more than 80 in January of ’07 were down to 12 last month; wounded in action dropped from 700 to 140 in that same time.
There has been a steady trend for several months of just one attack per month against Iraq’s oil and gas infrastructure and personnel, down from more than a dozen per month through much of the preceding years.
There are now 496,000 Iraqi Security Forces. As of March, 112 of the 171 battalions were taking the lead in security operations, requiring little or no assistance, as we saw in Basra and Mosul.
There were also 8,500 Iraqi Security Forces casualties from June, 2003 to July, 2008; noted for those who don’t think the Iraqi’s are sacrificing.
The Institute has rated Iraq ahead of all but 3 other Middle East nations on their Index of Political Freedoms, for those who see no political progress.
Crude oil production is back at pre-war levels with revenue increasing by 5 billion dollars since then. Electrical output has increased from pre-war levels of 3,958 megawatts to 4,570 now. Megawatt hours increased from 95,000 to 109,000 with the nation-wide average of available electricity improving from 4-8 hours pre-war to 11.3 hours per day now.
Iraq’s Gross Domestic Product has increased from $20.5 billion (USD) in 2002 to $48.5 billion in 2006, and is projected at $60.9 billion for 2008. Yes, they should pay more of their own way.
There were 175 trained judges in Iraq in June, 2004. As of this June there were 1,180. Harry Reid could take a lesson from them.
There were an estimated 833,000 pre-war phone and 4,500 internet subscribers. There are now 9.8 million with phones and 261,000 hooked to the web.
There were no commercial TV or radio stations under Saddam, nor were there any independent newspapers or magazines. As of March, 2006 there were already 54 TV stations, 114 radio stations, and 268 independent newspapers and magazines.
Apart from the Brookings report, which only discussed 11 benchmarks, we know the Iraqi’s are up to satisfactory progress or success with 15 of 18 benchmarks, and see political progress from the lowest to highest levels. They’re still finalizing this fall’s election processes and the hydrocarbon laws. But who are we to point the finger, given that all but a very few Democrats in our own country are willing to even debate hydrocarbons as part of our own energy policy?
We’re in the process of a large offensive against Al Qaeda remnants in the Diyala province, and Muqtada al Sadr’s influence continues to dwindle. He’s lost much popular support. His militia became as ferocious against civilians as Al Qaeda and thus became as hated. He and his Mahdi Army have suffered defeat after defeat at the hands of the coalition, putting him in a very weak position. So he continues to capitulate. Sorry, Nancy and Barack, we’re not buying your version of history which credits Sadr for the progress noted above.
Conditions in Iraq have now improved so much that the Administration has been in discussions with the Maliki government about a time horizon for our departure.
Of course though, these time horizons are conditions based, meaning we’re planning to win and as such, negotiating from the position of strength gained by the Surge as measured by some of the metrics noted above. These are conditions based time horizons, not the unconditional surrender liberals continue to advocate for, in spite of these same successes.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
ACLU Takes Aim at USNA
Written 5 August 08
The American Civil Liberties Union is at it again, trying to deny a group of Americans their freedom of religion.
This time they’ve targeted the United States Naval Academy, specifically their noon-time prayer, claiming it violates the First Amendment.
The prayer, a tradition, since 1845, is completely voluntary and non-sectarian, usually led by chaplains from all denominations. Academy Midshipmen can choose not to pray if they like.
But ironically, the ACLU is trying to deny the very men and women who will one day fight for the First Amendment the right to exercise that Amendment themselves.
Because nine current and former agnostic/atheist Midshipmen complained that the prayer made them uncomfortable, the ACLU has threatened a lawsuit against the Academy.
So here we are again with the ACLU and a handful of people ready to strip freedom of religion from thousands of others. They will claim to do so in the name of defending the rights of the nine, denying the same right to the thousands.
That in itself exposes the mission of the ACLU, to abolish religion from America. Their aim is not freedom of religion, it is freedom from religion.
So what’s next? No crosses, crescents, or stars as headstones at military cemeteries? Those are religious symbols on federal ground, that’s not separation of church and state. No praying during funerals at national cemeteries? That’s practicing religion on federal ground. No chaplains in the military? How can we use federal funds to pay a religious man?
All sarcasm aside, these become quite plausible if the attack on a meal-time prayer becomes the legal precedent by which all other assaults against religious freedom can be furthered. After all, given the ACLU’s reasoning and their goal, religion can not happen among government workers or aboard government property of any kind for any reason, as it intertwines the two. Thus, any presence or practice of religion involving the military will likely be targeted.
Taken to its ultimate, logical conclusion, the ACLU would probably prefer to ban all military personnel from practicing religion at all.
Undoubtedly, the time was coming for us to draw the line in the sand and collectively tell the ACLU, “No More!” This is the time and place where we need to make that stand.
Prayer is far too important for those of all religions to have it stripped away. It is a cornerstone of one’s faith. It’s particularly significant for those who choose to stand and fight for our country.
From experience, I know it can lead their daily lives, provide guidance and protection, help them find solace in loss, and peace in troubled times.
Especially necessary is prayer for dealing with death and being in the business of performing deadly acts.
Prayer can be the only thing that gets one through the rigors of military training (especially at some place as strenuous as the Naval Academy).
Prayer is what carries you through the arduous days of stress, grief, intensity, and danger of a combat zone. As someone once said, “There are no fox-hole atheists.”
It’s too important to let prayer be taken from us, even when taken in small pieces, and to let the rights of so many be eroded as they are.
Along with any action we can take against the ACLU in support of our rights (praying, calling elected officials, public commentary, letting the Academy know you support their decision to ignore the ACLU, etc) there is also a legal group taking up the fight against the ACLU and defending the First Amendment this time.
The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) is working to counter the ACLU. They were critical to the case in which a cross was allowed to stand as part of the Veteran’s Memorial at Mount Soledad near San Diego. Now they’re mobilizing to defend the right of our future military leaders to pray.
The ACLU’s attacks against the Naval Academy have crossed the line, and maybe the ACLJ will be successful in turning the tide of the ACLU’s onslaughts. But the most power for preserving freedom will come from the prayers and actions of those to whom freedom has been given.
The American Civil Liberties Union is at it again, trying to deny a group of Americans their freedom of religion.
This time they’ve targeted the United States Naval Academy, specifically their noon-time prayer, claiming it violates the First Amendment.
The prayer, a tradition, since 1845, is completely voluntary and non-sectarian, usually led by chaplains from all denominations. Academy Midshipmen can choose not to pray if they like.
But ironically, the ACLU is trying to deny the very men and women who will one day fight for the First Amendment the right to exercise that Amendment themselves.
Because nine current and former agnostic/atheist Midshipmen complained that the prayer made them uncomfortable, the ACLU has threatened a lawsuit against the Academy.
So here we are again with the ACLU and a handful of people ready to strip freedom of religion from thousands of others. They will claim to do so in the name of defending the rights of the nine, denying the same right to the thousands.
That in itself exposes the mission of the ACLU, to abolish religion from America. Their aim is not freedom of religion, it is freedom from religion.
So what’s next? No crosses, crescents, or stars as headstones at military cemeteries? Those are religious symbols on federal ground, that’s not separation of church and state. No praying during funerals at national cemeteries? That’s practicing religion on federal ground. No chaplains in the military? How can we use federal funds to pay a religious man?
All sarcasm aside, these become quite plausible if the attack on a meal-time prayer becomes the legal precedent by which all other assaults against religious freedom can be furthered. After all, given the ACLU’s reasoning and their goal, religion can not happen among government workers or aboard government property of any kind for any reason, as it intertwines the two. Thus, any presence or practice of religion involving the military will likely be targeted.
Taken to its ultimate, logical conclusion, the ACLU would probably prefer to ban all military personnel from practicing religion at all.
Undoubtedly, the time was coming for us to draw the line in the sand and collectively tell the ACLU, “No More!” This is the time and place where we need to make that stand.
Prayer is far too important for those of all religions to have it stripped away. It is a cornerstone of one’s faith. It’s particularly significant for those who choose to stand and fight for our country.
From experience, I know it can lead their daily lives, provide guidance and protection, help them find solace in loss, and peace in troubled times.
Especially necessary is prayer for dealing with death and being in the business of performing deadly acts.
Prayer can be the only thing that gets one through the rigors of military training (especially at some place as strenuous as the Naval Academy).
Prayer is what carries you through the arduous days of stress, grief, intensity, and danger of a combat zone. As someone once said, “There are no fox-hole atheists.”
It’s too important to let prayer be taken from us, even when taken in small pieces, and to let the rights of so many be eroded as they are.
Along with any action we can take against the ACLU in support of our rights (praying, calling elected officials, public commentary, letting the Academy know you support their decision to ignore the ACLU, etc) there is also a legal group taking up the fight against the ACLU and defending the First Amendment this time.
The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) is working to counter the ACLU. They were critical to the case in which a cross was allowed to stand as part of the Veteran’s Memorial at Mount Soledad near San Diego. Now they’re mobilizing to defend the right of our future military leaders to pray.
The ACLU’s attacks against the Naval Academy have crossed the line, and maybe the ACLJ will be successful in turning the tide of the ACLU’s onslaughts. But the most power for preserving freedom will come from the prayers and actions of those to whom freedom has been given.
Questions for the Left
Written 28 July 08
There are many things those of you on the far left need to clarify, questions that need answered.
One of your most vicious attacks on George Bush is that you believe he’s a liar. Well we know that Barack Obama has lied to you about his position on FISA. Additionally, he now says that he’s consistently claimed more troops in Iraq would reduce the violence. However, his recorded statements in opposition of The Surge prove he insisted it would increase violence, not reduce it. By your criteria, he’s lying. Why aren’t you mercilessly attacking him, consistent with your attacks on the President?
You’ve been quite critical of the President for being bullheaded, “in a bubble,” and controlling the information flow in and the message out. The last couple weeks have revealed some journalists quite frustrated with the Obama camp for doing the exact same thing. Why aren’t you criticizing him?
Aside from all the problems with wanting to federalize healthcare, why should we trust the government, as you ask of us, to control a mandated national healthcare system when the same government has failed so miserably at managing Social Security?
You showed neither the wisdom nor the courage to fight Al Qaeda in Iraq. Why should we believe you’ll demonstrate either attribute in a tough fight against them in Afghanistan? Shouldn’t we expect the same white flag parade?
My heart goes out to those who’ve fallen on hard times and are having mortgage difficulties because of it. I have sympathy for those taken by less than reputable mortgage companies. I refinanced my house several years ago, avoided the pitfalls, but saw where their tricks could lie. But tell all of us again why we, out of our own pockets via your tax and spend policies, need to bail out the others who made poor choices and got in over their own heads.
You always claimed to “support the troops” by demanding they come home. Why are you so quiet now that Obama wants to send more of them to Afghanistan? Why aren’t you “supporting the troops” now?
One of your most vile, and incredibly petty, attacks against the President is his struggling to put words together at times. Relentless personal attacks on his intelligence have followed. But we’ve learned over the last couple months that listening to Barack Obama without his teleprompter can be as riveting as listening to Mel Tillis teach sentence structure to a remedial English class. To be consistent, shouldn’t you be insulting Obama for the same thing?
Why do you demand action against genocide in Darfur, but were so willing to accept genocide in Iraq?
You oppose nuclear energy, clean coal, oil shale, ethanol, hydro, wind, and solar power for a variety of reasons. You also oppose drilling for more oil, primarily because of your claims that new drilling won’t bring results for 1 to 10 years. This stand against all sources of energy begs a couple questions. First, if you oppose every available energy source, what is your solution? Second, why does it make any sense for us to sit around going broke waiting for a fantasy renewable energy source that hasn’t been invented or brought to fruition, and isn’t capable of affecting our lives for an infinite amount of time when we can be utilizing more of a sure thing in the next few years?
You criticize the President for what you believe is his “go it alone” attitude in the world, yet you attack international agreements like NAFTA, wanted him to thumb his nose at China, kill joint ventures like the Columbia free trade agreement, threaten to invade Pakistan unilaterally, and insist on unilateral talks with Iran. You’re definitely not practicing what you preach here. At every turn you demand internationalism, but advocate and practice individualism and isolationism. Given such a schizophrenic stand on world affairs, why should anyone trust you to be any better at international relations?
One last thing for this short list which only scratches the surface of your hypocrisy: when trying to win a Congressional majority in 2006 you made a whole lot of promises about how much better all of our lives would be. Now you’re running a national campaign about the need to change because all of our lives are so miserable. Shouldn’t that mean we need to change away from you, those who have been in power over the last two years during which our lives, according to your measurements, have become so miserable?
There are many things those of you on the far left need to clarify, questions that need answered.
One of your most vicious attacks on George Bush is that you believe he’s a liar. Well we know that Barack Obama has lied to you about his position on FISA. Additionally, he now says that he’s consistently claimed more troops in Iraq would reduce the violence. However, his recorded statements in opposition of The Surge prove he insisted it would increase violence, not reduce it. By your criteria, he’s lying. Why aren’t you mercilessly attacking him, consistent with your attacks on the President?
You’ve been quite critical of the President for being bullheaded, “in a bubble,” and controlling the information flow in and the message out. The last couple weeks have revealed some journalists quite frustrated with the Obama camp for doing the exact same thing. Why aren’t you criticizing him?
Aside from all the problems with wanting to federalize healthcare, why should we trust the government, as you ask of us, to control a mandated national healthcare system when the same government has failed so miserably at managing Social Security?
You showed neither the wisdom nor the courage to fight Al Qaeda in Iraq. Why should we believe you’ll demonstrate either attribute in a tough fight against them in Afghanistan? Shouldn’t we expect the same white flag parade?
My heart goes out to those who’ve fallen on hard times and are having mortgage difficulties because of it. I have sympathy for those taken by less than reputable mortgage companies. I refinanced my house several years ago, avoided the pitfalls, but saw where their tricks could lie. But tell all of us again why we, out of our own pockets via your tax and spend policies, need to bail out the others who made poor choices and got in over their own heads.
You always claimed to “support the troops” by demanding they come home. Why are you so quiet now that Obama wants to send more of them to Afghanistan? Why aren’t you “supporting the troops” now?
One of your most vile, and incredibly petty, attacks against the President is his struggling to put words together at times. Relentless personal attacks on his intelligence have followed. But we’ve learned over the last couple months that listening to Barack Obama without his teleprompter can be as riveting as listening to Mel Tillis teach sentence structure to a remedial English class. To be consistent, shouldn’t you be insulting Obama for the same thing?
Why do you demand action against genocide in Darfur, but were so willing to accept genocide in Iraq?
You oppose nuclear energy, clean coal, oil shale, ethanol, hydro, wind, and solar power for a variety of reasons. You also oppose drilling for more oil, primarily because of your claims that new drilling won’t bring results for 1 to 10 years. This stand against all sources of energy begs a couple questions. First, if you oppose every available energy source, what is your solution? Second, why does it make any sense for us to sit around going broke waiting for a fantasy renewable energy source that hasn’t been invented or brought to fruition, and isn’t capable of affecting our lives for an infinite amount of time when we can be utilizing more of a sure thing in the next few years?
You criticize the President for what you believe is his “go it alone” attitude in the world, yet you attack international agreements like NAFTA, wanted him to thumb his nose at China, kill joint ventures like the Columbia free trade agreement, threaten to invade Pakistan unilaterally, and insist on unilateral talks with Iran. You’re definitely not practicing what you preach here. At every turn you demand internationalism, but advocate and practice individualism and isolationism. Given such a schizophrenic stand on world affairs, why should anyone trust you to be any better at international relations?
One last thing for this short list which only scratches the surface of your hypocrisy: when trying to win a Congressional majority in 2006 you made a whole lot of promises about how much better all of our lives would be. Now you’re running a national campaign about the need to change because all of our lives are so miserable. Shouldn’t that mean we need to change away from you, those who have been in power over the last two years during which our lives, according to your measurements, have become so miserable?
Recent Examples of the Terrorist Mentality, Obama’s Trip
Written 15 July 08
Several recent events have illustrated the difference in the Islamic terrorist mindset and that of civilized society.
Last week, Israel conducted a prisoner swap with Hezbollah. In exchange for two of their soldiers who had been kidnapped, sparking the 2006 war with Hezbollah, Israel agreed to release several Hezbollah militants who had been tried and jailed for crimes against the Israeli’s.
Symbolic of the differences between civilized societies and Islamic terrorists is the fact that the terrorists were returned alive by the Israeli’s to Hezbollah, while the remains of the Israeli’s were returned in coffins.
One group exhibits human decency in the treatment of prisoners, one does not.
Another difference was revealed in the reception of the terrorists at home, especially the most despicable among them, Samir Kuntar.
Kuntar had been tried and convicted of infiltrating Israel in 1979 and killing several people, including a 4 year old girl. He killed her by bashing her head against a rock, and then with the butt of his rifle.
Kuntar received a red carpet hero’s welcome upon his return.
Compare that with the treatment of our own Marines who were simply suspected of criminal wrongdoing at Haditha, including the deaths of children.
The Marines were tried and convicted in the court of public opinion by our national news media, many liberals, and at least one Congressman long before actual charges were brought against them, simply for being suspected of offenses.
The terrorists celebrate the murder of small children, recognizing those who are guilty of such crimes as heroes. By comparison, we publicly humiliate, imprison, and send to trial those among us who are even suspected of such. We would rightly punish those who are guilty of murdering children, not treat them as heroes.
Yet another comparison comes with the discovery and identification of remains of the last two American soldiers captured in a May 2007 ambush in an Al Qaeda infested area of Iraq, while this week we started the war crimes trial of an Al Qaeda member.
When captured, our soldiers are summarily killed by terrorists, while we wrestle with the question of how to best and fairly proceed with the trials of suspected terrorists.
There is clearly a discrepancy between the value placed on human life by terrorists and the civilized world. Distinctions about basic human dignity and decency also exist. The disparities should remind us all of the mentality we face among those we oppose in this war against terrorism.
The vast divergence is also central to the left’s inability to grasp any meaningful way to combat the threat, which leads us to Barack Obama finally traveling to Iraq.
Since he had already proclaimed his plan for retreat regardless of conditions on the ground even before departing, the outing was purely symbolic in nature.
This was reaffirmed by the very little time he spent in country and the fact that he took Senator Hagel with him, both moves that were not going to open his eyes to a realistic assessment of the situation.
What’s ironic is the fact that had we followed Obama’s advice on the Surge, he would not have been able to go to Iraq or meet with its leaders.
Had we believed his arguments that the Surge wouldn’t work, proclamations that it wasn’t working when it clearly was, and continuing to deny the facts on the ground when it has, it’s quite likely that Al Qaeda would control much of the country, and Iran the rest.
Even the Washington Post editorial board (not known for its conservative nature) recently called him on the carpet for his inaccurate view of the present situation.
Had we followed his lead, we would probably be sitting around wondering what to do about the genocide and humanitarian crisis in Iraq, and doing so with all the ineptitude of our Democrat led Congress and its 9% approval rating.
The pronouncements and plans made for Iraq before getting any facts, the unwillingness to fight a tough fight, and inability to see a winning strategy when it’s staring him in the face are revelations not to be taken lightly about someone seeking to be our Commander in Chief.
Couple those attributes with the revelations this week about his immediate post 9/11 view of Islamic terrorists acting out because of ignorance and poverty, rather than religious zealotry and hatred (completely contrary to the true terrorist mindset as briefly illustrated above) show a complete lack of aptitude for the office.
Several recent events have illustrated the difference in the Islamic terrorist mindset and that of civilized society.
Last week, Israel conducted a prisoner swap with Hezbollah. In exchange for two of their soldiers who had been kidnapped, sparking the 2006 war with Hezbollah, Israel agreed to release several Hezbollah militants who had been tried and jailed for crimes against the Israeli’s.
Symbolic of the differences between civilized societies and Islamic terrorists is the fact that the terrorists were returned alive by the Israeli’s to Hezbollah, while the remains of the Israeli’s were returned in coffins.
One group exhibits human decency in the treatment of prisoners, one does not.
Another difference was revealed in the reception of the terrorists at home, especially the most despicable among them, Samir Kuntar.
Kuntar had been tried and convicted of infiltrating Israel in 1979 and killing several people, including a 4 year old girl. He killed her by bashing her head against a rock, and then with the butt of his rifle.
Kuntar received a red carpet hero’s welcome upon his return.
Compare that with the treatment of our own Marines who were simply suspected of criminal wrongdoing at Haditha, including the deaths of children.
The Marines were tried and convicted in the court of public opinion by our national news media, many liberals, and at least one Congressman long before actual charges were brought against them, simply for being suspected of offenses.
The terrorists celebrate the murder of small children, recognizing those who are guilty of such crimes as heroes. By comparison, we publicly humiliate, imprison, and send to trial those among us who are even suspected of such. We would rightly punish those who are guilty of murdering children, not treat them as heroes.
Yet another comparison comes with the discovery and identification of remains of the last two American soldiers captured in a May 2007 ambush in an Al Qaeda infested area of Iraq, while this week we started the war crimes trial of an Al Qaeda member.
When captured, our soldiers are summarily killed by terrorists, while we wrestle with the question of how to best and fairly proceed with the trials of suspected terrorists.
There is clearly a discrepancy between the value placed on human life by terrorists and the civilized world. Distinctions about basic human dignity and decency also exist. The disparities should remind us all of the mentality we face among those we oppose in this war against terrorism.
The vast divergence is also central to the left’s inability to grasp any meaningful way to combat the threat, which leads us to Barack Obama finally traveling to Iraq.
Since he had already proclaimed his plan for retreat regardless of conditions on the ground even before departing, the outing was purely symbolic in nature.
This was reaffirmed by the very little time he spent in country and the fact that he took Senator Hagel with him, both moves that were not going to open his eyes to a realistic assessment of the situation.
What’s ironic is the fact that had we followed Obama’s advice on the Surge, he would not have been able to go to Iraq or meet with its leaders.
Had we believed his arguments that the Surge wouldn’t work, proclamations that it wasn’t working when it clearly was, and continuing to deny the facts on the ground when it has, it’s quite likely that Al Qaeda would control much of the country, and Iran the rest.
Even the Washington Post editorial board (not known for its conservative nature) recently called him on the carpet for his inaccurate view of the present situation.
Had we followed his lead, we would probably be sitting around wondering what to do about the genocide and humanitarian crisis in Iraq, and doing so with all the ineptitude of our Democrat led Congress and its 9% approval rating.
The pronouncements and plans made for Iraq before getting any facts, the unwillingness to fight a tough fight, and inability to see a winning strategy when it’s staring him in the face are revelations not to be taken lightly about someone seeking to be our Commander in Chief.
Couple those attributes with the revelations this week about his immediate post 9/11 view of Islamic terrorists acting out because of ignorance and poverty, rather than religious zealotry and hatred (completely contrary to the true terrorist mindset as briefly illustrated above) show a complete lack of aptitude for the office.
Defeating Al Qaeda Everywhere
It is critical to defeat Al Qaeda, wherever they may be.
Not just in Afghanistan. Not just in Iraq. Not just in southeast Asia. Not just in Somalia. Not just here at home, but everywhere.
To allow them safe haven is dangerous. To let them operate freely is foolish. To allow them an attack without rebuttal or to engage and then shrink from them is both.
History has shown time and again that those who possess the jihadist mentality will gather, train, plot, and attack when allowed to do so. She has also shown that success begets their success, increases recruiting into their ranks, and emboldens them for future actions.
The benefits they reaped from our weak or even lack of response to past attacks prove as much. Whether allowing them safe haven in Afghanistan through the 90’s, or responding poorly to attacks such as those against the embassies in Africa, not being equal to the threat has cost us.
The current battles in Iraq and Afghanistan further illustrate the point.
After the fall of Hussein, an opening was made for Al Qaeda to enter Iraq, cause instability, and try to create a safe haven of their own from which they would spread. It had worked for them in Afghanistan and it is well documented they saw an opportunity to do so again in Iraq.
An inadequate counterinsurgency plan on our part allowed Al Qaeda some success. When other jihadists from around the world saw this, they became emboldened to fight and flocked to Iraq. Any small victory encouraged them to attack further, as did the defeatist rhetoric coming from liberals within the U.S.
That piece of history is critical to understanding why defeating them at every turn is important. Even the perceived success they were having was enough to encourage others of a like-mind to join the fray, increasing the difficulties in Iraq. The same would be (and has been) true wherever they may be found.
The Surge proves what happens when you target and crush them.
We’ve been relentless against them for a year and a half. The word is out; Iraq is a losing fight for the Jihadists. As a result, the influx of jihadists is minimal, even negligible. The cycle has been broken. They have lost the edge, and with it the courage to fight.
However, freedom to operate in the Afghan-Pakistan border region has allowed them a safe haven to gather, train, and attack from. At one point we most certainly had them on the run. But as they do, Al Qaeda found and exploited a niche in the unmonitored areas of the border.
We’ve followed reports for some time of their gaining numbers in that lawless, inaccessible area. Once again, allowing them to operate unchecked has enticed others to join.
The Pentagon has been right in planning additional troops for Afghanistan. Remember the stories starting last October about the Marines shifting focus from Iraq to Afghanistan? The additional Marines sent in earlier this summer have shown the effectiveness of reinvigorating the fight on our behalf.
More troops are needed, but what’s needed more is a solution to the safe haven Al Qaeda has just inside the Pakistani border. Without it, they will be bolstered because they can act with impunity.
Here again is the critical point. Allowing them to operate freely and fight without responding adequately (as perceived by Al Qaeda because we can’t fully pursue) builds their confidence and has created a recruiting opportunity.
Now here’s where liberals get it wrong, including their poster boy, Obama.
They clamor for more troops in Afghanistan, but they do so only to disguise the call for defeat in Iraq, not necessarily to fight Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
It is likely they lack both the intestinal fortitude and wherewithal for this kind of fight in either place, because if defeating Al Qaeda in Iraq isn’t important, why is it important in Afghanistan, or anywhere else in the world for that matter? It’s not, nor can it be under their partisan, political logic.
Shrinking from a fight against Al Qaeda anywhere will only repeat history and embolden them for more attacks. Liberals can try to ignore them in selected places where it’s politically expedient to do so, but that won’t make Al Qaeda go away.
Reality lies with defeating Al Qaeda wherever they may be, not just where it’s politically correct to act like you want to.
Not just in Afghanistan. Not just in Iraq. Not just in southeast Asia. Not just in Somalia. Not just here at home, but everywhere.
To allow them safe haven is dangerous. To let them operate freely is foolish. To allow them an attack without rebuttal or to engage and then shrink from them is both.
History has shown time and again that those who possess the jihadist mentality will gather, train, plot, and attack when allowed to do so. She has also shown that success begets their success, increases recruiting into their ranks, and emboldens them for future actions.
The benefits they reaped from our weak or even lack of response to past attacks prove as much. Whether allowing them safe haven in Afghanistan through the 90’s, or responding poorly to attacks such as those against the embassies in Africa, not being equal to the threat has cost us.
The current battles in Iraq and Afghanistan further illustrate the point.
After the fall of Hussein, an opening was made for Al Qaeda to enter Iraq, cause instability, and try to create a safe haven of their own from which they would spread. It had worked for them in Afghanistan and it is well documented they saw an opportunity to do so again in Iraq.
An inadequate counterinsurgency plan on our part allowed Al Qaeda some success. When other jihadists from around the world saw this, they became emboldened to fight and flocked to Iraq. Any small victory encouraged them to attack further, as did the defeatist rhetoric coming from liberals within the U.S.
That piece of history is critical to understanding why defeating them at every turn is important. Even the perceived success they were having was enough to encourage others of a like-mind to join the fray, increasing the difficulties in Iraq. The same would be (and has been) true wherever they may be found.
The Surge proves what happens when you target and crush them.
We’ve been relentless against them for a year and a half. The word is out; Iraq is a losing fight for the Jihadists. As a result, the influx of jihadists is minimal, even negligible. The cycle has been broken. They have lost the edge, and with it the courage to fight.
However, freedom to operate in the Afghan-Pakistan border region has allowed them a safe haven to gather, train, and attack from. At one point we most certainly had them on the run. But as they do, Al Qaeda found and exploited a niche in the unmonitored areas of the border.
We’ve followed reports for some time of their gaining numbers in that lawless, inaccessible area. Once again, allowing them to operate unchecked has enticed others to join.
The Pentagon has been right in planning additional troops for Afghanistan. Remember the stories starting last October about the Marines shifting focus from Iraq to Afghanistan? The additional Marines sent in earlier this summer have shown the effectiveness of reinvigorating the fight on our behalf.
More troops are needed, but what’s needed more is a solution to the safe haven Al Qaeda has just inside the Pakistani border. Without it, they will be bolstered because they can act with impunity.
Here again is the critical point. Allowing them to operate freely and fight without responding adequately (as perceived by Al Qaeda because we can’t fully pursue) builds their confidence and has created a recruiting opportunity.
Now here’s where liberals get it wrong, including their poster boy, Obama.
They clamor for more troops in Afghanistan, but they do so only to disguise the call for defeat in Iraq, not necessarily to fight Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
It is likely they lack both the intestinal fortitude and wherewithal for this kind of fight in either place, because if defeating Al Qaeda in Iraq isn’t important, why is it important in Afghanistan, or anywhere else in the world for that matter? It’s not, nor can it be under their partisan, political logic.
Shrinking from a fight against Al Qaeda anywhere will only repeat history and embolden them for more attacks. Liberals can try to ignore them in selected places where it’s politically expedient to do so, but that won’t make Al Qaeda go away.
Reality lies with defeating Al Qaeda wherever they may be, not just where it’s politically correct to act like you want to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
