Today Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice bluntly warned Iran not to interfere with the renewed American efforts to stabilize Iraq. Using significant terms such as "regional aggression" to describe Iran's activities in Iraq, Rice made the salient point that the Iranian government will be held accountable for terrorist activity in Iraq, and that the orders for IEDs, snipers, or "insurgent" attacks are coming from Tehran. She could not have stated more clearly the administration’s plans for the troop increase, yet she never spelled out the true purpose for the troop buildup: confronting Iran.
Approximately 6 hours prior to Rice's official statement this morning, multinational forces in Iraq reportedly raided the Iranian diplomatic mission in Arbil, capturing 6 Iranians and securing computers and documents believed to link Iran with ongoing sectarian violence in Iraq. The significance of such an action, coming the day following President Bush’s assurance that new tactics would be implemented to stabilize Iraq, should not be underestimated.
A military raid on a diplomatic mission is considered an aggressive act against the nation operating the mission, and is not conducted at the discretion of rank-and-file military officers. A foreign mission, like an embassy, is generally considered to be virtually sovereign soil of the nation quartered in the mission. An assault on a diplomatic mission, even if it clearly is being used to coordinate terrorist activity, is still the equivalent of a raid on the nation itself. Such a potentially provocative action was certainly was not taken without approval at the highest levels of the Bush Administration. The gloves are apparently coming off, and it appears the focus of American efforts to stabilize Iraq will be to confront Iran directly, engaging Iranian terrorists found stirring up the “insurgency” in Iraq and obtaining incontrovertible evidence of Iranian participation in attacks on American and multinational forces in Iraq.
Iraq will never be stable and secure until Iran’s interference there is eliminated. Iran’s interference there will continue until Ahmadinejad is confronted directly on his nation’s role as perhaps the world’s largest state sponsor of terror and he is forced to terminate Iran’s nuclear weapons development programs. Ahmadinejad has made his intentions all too clear: acquire nuclear weapons and use them to wipe Israel off the map and then destroy America. The world failed to take Hitler at his word for too long, and a Holocaust occurred (though Ahmadinejad believes it was a hoax). American and its allies should take Ahmadinejad at his word.
The troop buildup and more aggressive tactics such as the raid on the Iranian mission in Arbil, are steps in the right direction for securing and stabilizing Iraq. Once Iranian interference and terrorist funding/training are effectively cut off, the world will get a much more accurate view of the real situation in Iraq and who has been fomenting the so-called religious “civil war.” Secretary Rice and this administration surely know that Iranian operatives will be found frequently and in large numbers in Iraq, and those operatives, acting as agents of Tehran, will provide a legitimate justification to for America to engage Iran directly as the primary enemy in the War on Terror.
Technorati Tags: Iraq War War On Terror Iraq Ahmadinejad Bush Administration Condoleeza Rice Iranian Nuclear Program Arbil
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Saturday, December 30, 2006
Spectre of Sadaam Dead as a Door Nail
Sadaam Hussein is dead. I expected to write those words in 1991 during Operation Desert Storm, and with the 15 year delay they take on even greater meaning than they would have then. President Bush, in his statement on the execution of the deposed dictator, rightly reminded the world that Sadaam was sentenced after a fair trial by the Iraqi government and his subsequent execution was the completion of Iraqi justice. Sadaam was executed by Iraqis for crimes against his own people, crimes including torture, murder, genocide (Kurds), and starving citizens through his stubborn failure to comply with UN resolutions regarding WMD inspections. Clearly Sadaam was an oppressive, brutal dictator who merited his ultimate fate.
The President appropriately reminded the world that before this war fair trials and elected representation did not exist in Iraq. Having been given the opportunity to govern themselves, Iraqis chose to execute Sadaam quickly and continue on the path to a successful democracy. They do not enjoy the luxury of debating and second-guessing the justifications for and execution of the war. They are far too focused on the survival of their elected government to dwell on how or why this gift of freedom was given to them.
The permanent removal of Sadaam from the Iraqi psyche will inject fresh commitment and courage into the efforts of the Iraqi government to nurture the fledgling democracy. While Sadaam lived, many Iraqis continued to harbor fears of a possible return to power in which Sadaam might rule with even more horror and bloodshed. His execution will quell such sentiments and truly end the nightmare of Sadaam experienced firsthand by millions of his citizens.
Many anti-war pundits argue that the removal of Sadaam only replaced a dictator with hordes of Al Qaeda and other terrorists, and thus the Iraqi people are in more danger than ever. That analysis misses the obvious and critical point of freedom: the danger to Iraqis is no longer posed by their own leader and his government. Iraqis now face the same danger we face here and Israelis have faced for decades, and that is terrorism. These newcomers to democracy have made remarkable progress in cobbling together an elected government and it stands to reason that if such an ethnically diverse population can unite on self-rule, they will also unite on a national strategy to combat terrorism in their country. Having opened the door for this democracy, we must remain as long as requested to preserve its fragile foundations.
Iraq War War On Terror Sadaam Hussein Al Qaeda Iraq execution
The President appropriately reminded the world that before this war fair trials and elected representation did not exist in Iraq. Having been given the opportunity to govern themselves, Iraqis chose to execute Sadaam quickly and continue on the path to a successful democracy. They do not enjoy the luxury of debating and second-guessing the justifications for and execution of the war. They are far too focused on the survival of their elected government to dwell on how or why this gift of freedom was given to them.
The permanent removal of Sadaam from the Iraqi psyche will inject fresh commitment and courage into the efforts of the Iraqi government to nurture the fledgling democracy. While Sadaam lived, many Iraqis continued to harbor fears of a possible return to power in which Sadaam might rule with even more horror and bloodshed. His execution will quell such sentiments and truly end the nightmare of Sadaam experienced firsthand by millions of his citizens.
Many anti-war pundits argue that the removal of Sadaam only replaced a dictator with hordes of Al Qaeda and other terrorists, and thus the Iraqi people are in more danger than ever. That analysis misses the obvious and critical point of freedom: the danger to Iraqis is no longer posed by their own leader and his government. Iraqis now face the same danger we face here and Israelis have faced for decades, and that is terrorism. These newcomers to democracy have made remarkable progress in cobbling together an elected government and it stands to reason that if such an ethnically diverse population can unite on self-rule, they will also unite on a national strategy to combat terrorism in their country. Having opened the door for this democracy, we must remain as long as requested to preserve its fragile foundations.
Iraq War War On Terror Sadaam Hussein Al Qaeda Iraq execution
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
No, Senator Biden, This is OUR War
“I know we in Congress agreed to go to war, President Roosevelt, but here in December 1942 the war is costing us too much in expenditures and casualties, and so now we want nothing to do with it. This is now your war President Roosevelt, and you alone will be responsible for its outcome. Although we authorized the war and agreed our intelligence on Hitler justified action, we now think you were wrong and will not support the war.” As outlandish as this fictional exchange may sound, Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE), the incoming Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, proposed just such a course in comments made during a teleconference with reporters today. Biden, apparently unaware that Christmas should bring goodwill toward men, spent the day after Christmas blasting the President’s Iraq strategy. While such behavior is normal for Biden, the Senator made a few remarks that deserve further scrutiny.
Biden told reporters he wants to hold hearings on Iraq beginning on January 9, and added that the purpose of the hearings would be to create bipartisan consensus on Iraq. The Senator is so enamored with the recommendations of The Iraq Study Group Report
that he wants to review its findings and give them more media attention than they initially received. Of course, the ISG findings were highly critical of the Bush administration’s handling of the war, so it is unclear how rehashing its findings in the media will generate bipartisan consensus on anything. It is far more likely that Senator Biden seeks a more public forum in which to present Americans with his diplomatic bona fides in advance of his bid for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2008.
More troubling was this comment from Biden: “Mr. President, this is your war.” In the difficult early years of U.S. involvement in WWII, there were some very bleak moments, many lost battles, and terrible casualties. Hitler continued to advance, and many were losing hope of eventual victory. Despite such misery and with no certainty of success, where were the Senators telling President Roosevelt, “Mr. President, this is your war”? Fortunately, that generation, unlike Mr. Biden’s, understood that once American troops are committed to a war, bipartisanship means doing everything necessary to ensure victory rather than ridicule the President or accuse him of lying to create the war in the first place. There is no such thing as “your war” or “his war” or Bush’s war.” When our troops are fighting, it is OUR war. When they win, we win. When they lose or are prevented from winning by obstructionists like Biden, we all lose. There will always be time for hearings, committees, investigations, and other tools for embarrassing a president after the war is won and the troops have returned home.
However, for Senator Biden and other Democrats seeking the presidency in 2008, victory in Iraq is unacceptable politically. It would give too much credibility to Republicans who stayed the course in supporting the Bush strategy, and make those who opposed the war appear like nothing more than 1960s peaceniks with little stomach for difficult times or battles. A U.S. victory in Iraq, in the minds of today’s Democrats, means political defeat in 2008. Accordingly, even the politically astute Hillary Clinton has joined the ranks of anti-war presidential hopefuls in a risky gamble that victory in Iraq will not be snatched from the jaws of defeat prior to the 2008 election. Pete Rose’s betting on a sport he was personally involved in pales in comparison, and the stakes were never this high.
Candidates like Biden rise up indignantly when their patriotism is questioned, but patriotism is displayed by how well one works to achieve American victory, not how fast one can bring the troops home. Based on that criterion, it is fair to challenge Biden’s patriotism, because he has labored unwearyingly to cast the war in a negative light and clamor for a pullout of all U.S. troops at the earliest possible date. He is not interested in victory because he believes the war should never have been fought. He continues to carp on this administration for waging this war instead of offering useful ideas for how to win it now that we are in it. Either Biden has no such ideas or he simply cannot bear the thought of eventual victory, because winning the war would confirm he and the entire anti-war, anti-bush movement within the Democratic Party were wrong about this President and the Iraqi people.
Thankfully during the many initial defeats America faced in WWII, Senators possessed sufficient patriotism to tell President Roosevelt, “This is OUR war.” The size of the war does not matter. Which party was in office when it started is insignificant. Who will receive the credit for victory or the blame for defeat is irrelevant. The only questions so-called bipartisan lawmakers should be contemplating are: “how will we win OUR war, and what can I do to make that possible?” When a Senator holds hearings to discuss those questions and then acts to achieve victory, then his/her patriotism will be beyond question.
Joseph Biden Iraq Study Group Hillary Clinton Iraq War Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Biden told reporters he wants to hold hearings on Iraq beginning on January 9, and added that the purpose of the hearings would be to create bipartisan consensus on Iraq. The Senator is so enamored with the recommendations of The Iraq Study Group Report
that he wants to review its findings and give them more media attention than they initially received. Of course, the ISG findings were highly critical of the Bush administration’s handling of the war, so it is unclear how rehashing its findings in the media will generate bipartisan consensus on anything. It is far more likely that Senator Biden seeks a more public forum in which to present Americans with his diplomatic bona fides in advance of his bid for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2008.More troubling was this comment from Biden: “Mr. President, this is your war.” In the difficult early years of U.S. involvement in WWII, there were some very bleak moments, many lost battles, and terrible casualties. Hitler continued to advance, and many were losing hope of eventual victory. Despite such misery and with no certainty of success, where were the Senators telling President Roosevelt, “Mr. President, this is your war”? Fortunately, that generation, unlike Mr. Biden’s, understood that once American troops are committed to a war, bipartisanship means doing everything necessary to ensure victory rather than ridicule the President or accuse him of lying to create the war in the first place. There is no such thing as “your war” or “his war” or Bush’s war.” When our troops are fighting, it is OUR war. When they win, we win. When they lose or are prevented from winning by obstructionists like Biden, we all lose. There will always be time for hearings, committees, investigations, and other tools for embarrassing a president after the war is won and the troops have returned home.
However, for Senator Biden and other Democrats seeking the presidency in 2008, victory in Iraq is unacceptable politically. It would give too much credibility to Republicans who stayed the course in supporting the Bush strategy, and make those who opposed the war appear like nothing more than 1960s peaceniks with little stomach for difficult times or battles. A U.S. victory in Iraq, in the minds of today’s Democrats, means political defeat in 2008. Accordingly, even the politically astute Hillary Clinton has joined the ranks of anti-war presidential hopefuls in a risky gamble that victory in Iraq will not be snatched from the jaws of defeat prior to the 2008 election. Pete Rose’s betting on a sport he was personally involved in pales in comparison, and the stakes were never this high.
Candidates like Biden rise up indignantly when their patriotism is questioned, but patriotism is displayed by how well one works to achieve American victory, not how fast one can bring the troops home. Based on that criterion, it is fair to challenge Biden’s patriotism, because he has labored unwearyingly to cast the war in a negative light and clamor for a pullout of all U.S. troops at the earliest possible date. He is not interested in victory because he believes the war should never have been fought. He continues to carp on this administration for waging this war instead of offering useful ideas for how to win it now that we are in it. Either Biden has no such ideas or he simply cannot bear the thought of eventual victory, because winning the war would confirm he and the entire anti-war, anti-bush movement within the Democratic Party were wrong about this President and the Iraqi people.
Thankfully during the many initial defeats America faced in WWII, Senators possessed sufficient patriotism to tell President Roosevelt, “This is OUR war.” The size of the war does not matter. Which party was in office when it started is insignificant. Who will receive the credit for victory or the blame for defeat is irrelevant. The only questions so-called bipartisan lawmakers should be contemplating are: “how will we win OUR war, and what can I do to make that possible?” When a Senator holds hearings to discuss those questions and then acts to achieve victory, then his/her patriotism will be beyond question.
Joseph Biden Iraq Study Group Hillary Clinton Iraq War Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Monday, December 18, 2006
Newt Gingrich on Iraq: Meet the Press Part I
Newt Gingrich appeared on Meet the Press yesterday, and in an interview covering a broad range of political topics, offered a concise explanation for why the Iraq War is plaguing the current administration.
Gingrich, never one to speak in generalities, stated explicitly why he believes the execution of the Iraq War has been a failure from the beginning and will continue to fail unless this administration adopts one of the originally proposed strategies:
Gingrich made it abundantly clear that military commanders and civilian appointees, including General Abizaid and especially L. Paul Bremer, ultimately chose not to work with the local sheiks to root out the extremists and “insurgents” in Iraq. Instead the administration and its military leaders chose to impose a distinctly American regime-change operation.
The tragic (although this situation can still be remedied) consequence of that decision was that while the poor Iraqi citizens who were overjoyed to see Sadaam Hussein toppled were not joined in celebration by the more wealthy sheiks who found themselves tribally emasculated and replaced by a foreign military presence. As well-meaning as our military presence may have been and continues to be, to the sheiks it was viewed as an affront to their long-held power and ability to control radical elements of all sects within their local regions. Instead of utilizing these sheiks, the administration’s strategy marginalized them and no one should be surprised that the sheiks have offered only marginal assistance in identifying, tracking, or capturing terrorists ensconced in regions the sheiks previously controlled.
Unfortunately, now that Democrats have won the majority in the House and Senate, there is no talk of a move toward inclusion of the sheiks. The only strategy under consideration is to see which Senator or Congressman can set the earliest withdrawal date so he/she can take credit for bringing the troops home.
Newt Gingrich Paul Bremer Meet The Press War On Terror Iraq War
Gingrich, never one to speak in generalities, stated explicitly why he believes the execution of the Iraq War has been a failure from the beginning and will continue to fail unless this administration adopts one of the originally proposed strategies:
But Captain Travis Patriquin. P-A-T-R-I-Q-U-I-N. He did a stick figure briefing on how to win in Al Anbar and it will break your heart. Because he said, ‘Look, there are sheiks in Al Anbar who’ve been the local power structure for 1300 years and they know how to run the place. They know how to track down the, the, the bad guys. They know what to do. And a bunch of 26-year-olds come in with Bremer and write a law that said, “The sheiks are irrelevant. We now represent modernity.” And we’ve now spent three years not knowing what we’re doing, not knowing who the bad guys are, not knowing who the good guys are. And you, and you see this stick figure presentation by this young Marine who was killed just a few weeks ago and it makes you want to cry because we, starting in June of ‘03, violated virtually every principal I know about how to be effective in this kind of country.
Gingrich made it abundantly clear that military commanders and civilian appointees, including General Abizaid and especially L. Paul Bremer, ultimately chose not to work with the local sheiks to root out the extremists and “insurgents” in Iraq. Instead the administration and its military leaders chose to impose a distinctly American regime-change operation.
The tragic (although this situation can still be remedied) consequence of that decision was that while the poor Iraqi citizens who were overjoyed to see Sadaam Hussein toppled were not joined in celebration by the more wealthy sheiks who found themselves tribally emasculated and replaced by a foreign military presence. As well-meaning as our military presence may have been and continues to be, to the sheiks it was viewed as an affront to their long-held power and ability to control radical elements of all sects within their local regions. Instead of utilizing these sheiks, the administration’s strategy marginalized them and no one should be surprised that the sheiks have offered only marginal assistance in identifying, tracking, or capturing terrorists ensconced in regions the sheiks previously controlled.
Unfortunately, now that Democrats have won the majority in the House and Senate, there is no talk of a move toward inclusion of the sheiks. The only strategy under consideration is to see which Senator or Congressman can set the earliest withdrawal date so he/she can take credit for bringing the troops home.
Newt Gingrich Paul Bremer Meet The Press War On Terror Iraq War
Saturday, December 9, 2006
4 Hand Grenades, 1 handgun and a Partridge . . .
Yesterday, the FBI thwarted a plot by an Illinois man to acquire 4 grenades and a handgun, and detonate the grenades on December 22nd in the CherryVale shopping mall in Rockford, Illinois. The 22 year old suspect, Talib Abu Salam Ibn Shareef, claimed he wanted to conduct “violent jihad” during what he believed would be the busiest evening for Christmas shopping, as the 22nd would be the Friday of Christmas weekend. The date and target site were selected with the desire to inflict maximum casualties among shoppers. Shareef reportedly met with an undercover FBI agent in the mall parking lot and attempted to trade 2 stereo speakers for 4 grenades (which were of course inert) and a handgun.
It seems this self-proclaimed terrorist has not been monitoring the news lately, because he seems to have missed the Iraq Study Group (ISG) report, which should have pacified any terrorist who still believed our nation had the stomach to fight terrorists. Since the Iraq study group came to the laughable conclusion that we are creating terrorism by our presence in Iraq, and that if we leave Iraq, terrorists will stop plotting to kill Americans, their recommendation to tuck tail and flee Iraq in shame should have doused the flame of radical Islam roaring in Shareef. Apparently radical Islam did not get the congratulatory memo from the ISG granting victory to the terrorists, since they are still fomenting terrorist acts against America despite our obvious move toward a withdrawal. Will leaving Iraq end the radical Islamic desire to kill Americans? Of course not. Shareef is living proof of this fact.
The ISG also declared that settling the eternal war between Israel and its neighbors will end terrorism. Oh! I thought ending terrorism required something challenging, but if all it takes is ending the Palestinian-Israeli dispute, then we should have that wrapped up before Christmas, right James Baker? To the members of the ISG, if our tremendous military could not eliminate the “insurgents,” why should anyone believe the Iraqi military and police forces will succeed in protecting and preserving this newly established democratically elected government? We rushed to push Sadaam out of Kuwait because he was supplanting an existing government, not even a democracy. Now in Iraq, millions braved suicide bombers and IEDs and snipers to vote and establish a democracy, and you recommend leaving this fledgling government to protect itself because things are tough there? Sadly, the ISG proved that countless years of experience (who knew Sandra Day O’Connor was a military and counter-terrorism expert?) do not automatically produce wisdom to match.
What is surprising is that despite all of the political thriller books, television programs, and movies depicting small cells of terrorists in the USA carrying out acts like the one planned by Shareef, none have occurred. Yet. Israel has borne the brunt of shopping mall and restaurant bombings, largely due to its proximity to its enemies. We have been fortunate to avoid such widespread, small-scale attacks. Yet during our period of good fortune, our enemies have made deep inroads into American culture and have become experts in using our personal liberties to conceal their true intentions. The question no one wants to think about, the nightmare for the intelligence and law enforcement communities is “how many Talib Shareefs are there among us?” The chilling follow-up question is “can we catch them all before they strike?” As anyone in the intelligence or law enforcement field will admit, the answer is no. We cannot be right 100% of the time, and the resources are simply not sufficient (nor is the public willing) to secure all potential targets. One need only look at the public paranoia (encouraged by the MSM) over surveillance provisions of the Patriot Act to know we will eventually be defeated from within, not from without. No global power will land on our shores and conquer us. We will fold from within, as we have been doing since Vietnam and continue to do at an ever increasing rate in the War on Terror.
This raises a critical issue that receives insufficient attention. Since terrorism is a product of ideology, can we really wage war on it? Our military and intelligence personnel have discovered that killing “insurgents” does not serve as a sufficient deterrent when fighting an enemy that views martyrdom and suicide bombing as a path to eternal glory. They will never openly confront our far superior military on any battlefield, but will continue to strike with small scale but lethal tactics until they frustrate their mighty opponent in Iraq and convince the American public (with ample and gleeful assistance from the MSM) that the fight is not worth it (which has already been accomplished). Perhaps we have all forgotten that whether or not the Iraq Conflict is a cornerstone in the larger War on Terror, the name of the military operation there was, and remains, Operation Iraqi Freedom. The name is not “Operation Iraqi Freedom Unless it Becomes Difficult or Grave.” Iraqi Freedom. How long is too long to fight to preserve freedom?
Complicating the matter is the fact that conversion of young Islamic radicals to a Jihad-ready ideology is occurring at an alarming rate in America. The home grown terrorist poses enormous investigative and prosecutorial nightmares in a society based on individual liberties. The FBI and other agencies are relatively proficient at tracking persons with known terrorist ties who visit the US. However, as the Shareef mall grenade plot demonstrates, attacks planned by home grown terrorists usually are discovered only when an informant (a friend, neighbor, or family member) reports them to law enforcement. Many assassins and attackers in the planning stages cannot help but boast of what they intend to do. It is an often irrepressible human urge. Islamic radicals, if they discuss their planned attacks, will not boast to “infidels” but to others of their faith and, they hope, sympathetic brothers and sisters in that faith. This is the key to winning the War on Terror. Muslims need to demonstrate that they truly belong to a religion of peace by policing their communities and yes, informing on those with ties to radical factions espousing violence. Until this happens regularly and as a matter of course in predominantly Muslim communities, the potential for attacks like Shareef’s will only increase.
An eternal debt of gratitude is owed to the friend who contacted the FBI in time to prevent a Christmas tragedy in Illinois.
FBI CSAG Iraq Jihad James Baker War On Terror Iraq Study Group radical Islam
It seems this self-proclaimed terrorist has not been monitoring the news lately, because he seems to have missed the Iraq Study Group (ISG) report, which should have pacified any terrorist who still believed our nation had the stomach to fight terrorists. Since the Iraq study group came to the laughable conclusion that we are creating terrorism by our presence in Iraq, and that if we leave Iraq, terrorists will stop plotting to kill Americans, their recommendation to tuck tail and flee Iraq in shame should have doused the flame of radical Islam roaring in Shareef. Apparently radical Islam did not get the congratulatory memo from the ISG granting victory to the terrorists, since they are still fomenting terrorist acts against America despite our obvious move toward a withdrawal. Will leaving Iraq end the radical Islamic desire to kill Americans? Of course not. Shareef is living proof of this fact.
The ISG also declared that settling the eternal war between Israel and its neighbors will end terrorism. Oh! I thought ending terrorism required something challenging, but if all it takes is ending the Palestinian-Israeli dispute, then we should have that wrapped up before Christmas, right James Baker? To the members of the ISG, if our tremendous military could not eliminate the “insurgents,” why should anyone believe the Iraqi military and police forces will succeed in protecting and preserving this newly established democratically elected government? We rushed to push Sadaam out of Kuwait because he was supplanting an existing government, not even a democracy. Now in Iraq, millions braved suicide bombers and IEDs and snipers to vote and establish a democracy, and you recommend leaving this fledgling government to protect itself because things are tough there? Sadly, the ISG proved that countless years of experience (who knew Sandra Day O’Connor was a military and counter-terrorism expert?) do not automatically produce wisdom to match.
What is surprising is that despite all of the political thriller books, television programs, and movies depicting small cells of terrorists in the USA carrying out acts like the one planned by Shareef, none have occurred. Yet. Israel has borne the brunt of shopping mall and restaurant bombings, largely due to its proximity to its enemies. We have been fortunate to avoid such widespread, small-scale attacks. Yet during our period of good fortune, our enemies have made deep inroads into American culture and have become experts in using our personal liberties to conceal their true intentions. The question no one wants to think about, the nightmare for the intelligence and law enforcement communities is “how many Talib Shareefs are there among us?” The chilling follow-up question is “can we catch them all before they strike?” As anyone in the intelligence or law enforcement field will admit, the answer is no. We cannot be right 100% of the time, and the resources are simply not sufficient (nor is the public willing) to secure all potential targets. One need only look at the public paranoia (encouraged by the MSM) over surveillance provisions of the Patriot Act to know we will eventually be defeated from within, not from without. No global power will land on our shores and conquer us. We will fold from within, as we have been doing since Vietnam and continue to do at an ever increasing rate in the War on Terror.
This raises a critical issue that receives insufficient attention. Since terrorism is a product of ideology, can we really wage war on it? Our military and intelligence personnel have discovered that killing “insurgents” does not serve as a sufficient deterrent when fighting an enemy that views martyrdom and suicide bombing as a path to eternal glory. They will never openly confront our far superior military on any battlefield, but will continue to strike with small scale but lethal tactics until they frustrate their mighty opponent in Iraq and convince the American public (with ample and gleeful assistance from the MSM) that the fight is not worth it (which has already been accomplished). Perhaps we have all forgotten that whether or not the Iraq Conflict is a cornerstone in the larger War on Terror, the name of the military operation there was, and remains, Operation Iraqi Freedom. The name is not “Operation Iraqi Freedom Unless it Becomes Difficult or Grave.” Iraqi Freedom. How long is too long to fight to preserve freedom?
Complicating the matter is the fact that conversion of young Islamic radicals to a Jihad-ready ideology is occurring at an alarming rate in America. The home grown terrorist poses enormous investigative and prosecutorial nightmares in a society based on individual liberties. The FBI and other agencies are relatively proficient at tracking persons with known terrorist ties who visit the US. However, as the Shareef mall grenade plot demonstrates, attacks planned by home grown terrorists usually are discovered only when an informant (a friend, neighbor, or family member) reports them to law enforcement. Many assassins and attackers in the planning stages cannot help but boast of what they intend to do. It is an often irrepressible human urge. Islamic radicals, if they discuss their planned attacks, will not boast to “infidels” but to others of their faith and, they hope, sympathetic brothers and sisters in that faith. This is the key to winning the War on Terror. Muslims need to demonstrate that they truly belong to a religion of peace by policing their communities and yes, informing on those with ties to radical factions espousing violence. Until this happens regularly and as a matter of course in predominantly Muslim communities, the potential for attacks like Shareef’s will only increase.
An eternal debt of gratitude is owed to the friend who contacted the FBI in time to prevent a Christmas tragedy in Illinois.
FBI CSAG Iraq Jihad James Baker War On Terror Iraq Study Group radical Islam
Friday, November 10, 2006
Iraqis Point Purple Fingers at American Voter Apathy
While I am displeased with this week's election results in the House and Senate, I sense that the greatest setback for America was the continued apathy the vast majority of Americans have toward choosing their leaders. Election statistics indicate that only 40% of registered voters took the time to cast a ballot in an election held while our nation is waging a war in the Middle East, working to disrupt terrorist planning, and crossing its fingers that the strong economy continues its record growth. The direction of a war. That seems like a serious issue for voters, right? Eight state ballots included marriage amendments, and every state ballot contained local bond and tax initiatives that directly impact the pocketbook of each resident. Yet only 40% of registered voters bothered to voice their opinions through voting. Ironically, 100% of American citizens exercise their right to complain when their elected officials pass harmful legislation or make decisions the citizens oppose. Everyone has an opinion on the War on Terror and the Iraq Conflict, yet more energy and time are spent calling talk shows or writing emails to newspapers and news networks than the brief expenditure of time required for voting.
It is no wonder much of the world is skeptical of America's attempt to instill democratic principles in Iraq (or anywhere else), given that the Iraqi elections (remember the symbolic purple-tipped fingers?) were an inspiring display of courage and participation despite the threat of death each Iraqi voter faced simply for voting to establish an elected government. Americans in some voting precincts cry about "voter suppression" or "voter intimidation." While the validity of those claims is unconfirmed, one wonders how much these complainers really value their freedom to vote. Iraqis stood in long lines for hours while armed militants, snipers, and bombers lurked nearby. Car bombs and other improvised explosives detonated; snipers hit several innocent targets, and yet in the face of potential death 63% of these brave newcomers to democracy cast their ballots. When was the last time voters in American cities braved car bombs and snipers to vote for their leaders and tax/bond initiatives? That is real "voter intimidation" and "voter suppression," and if the Iraqis could overcome it, what is our excuse as a nation for failing to overcome the perceived "inconveniences" of going to the polls to vote? It is disturbing to consider the apathy and mindset of the 60% of registered voters who failed to participate in this election.
The Iraqis are wagging their purple index fingers at us and are wondering: in which country does democracy have greater need to be planted and nurtured, Iraq or America?
voter apathy purple fingers Iraq elections
It is no wonder much of the world is skeptical of America's attempt to instill democratic principles in Iraq (or anywhere else), given that the Iraqi elections (remember the symbolic purple-tipped fingers?) were an inspiring display of courage and participation despite the threat of death each Iraqi voter faced simply for voting to establish an elected government. Americans in some voting precincts cry about "voter suppression" or "voter intimidation." While the validity of those claims is unconfirmed, one wonders how much these complainers really value their freedom to vote. Iraqis stood in long lines for hours while armed militants, snipers, and bombers lurked nearby. Car bombs and other improvised explosives detonated; snipers hit several innocent targets, and yet in the face of potential death 63% of these brave newcomers to democracy cast their ballots. When was the last time voters in American cities braved car bombs and snipers to vote for their leaders and tax/bond initiatives? That is real "voter intimidation" and "voter suppression," and if the Iraqis could overcome it, what is our excuse as a nation for failing to overcome the perceived "inconveniences" of going to the polls to vote? It is disturbing to consider the apathy and mindset of the 60% of registered voters who failed to participate in this election.
The Iraqis are wagging their purple index fingers at us and are wondering: in which country does democracy have greater need to be planted and nurtured, Iraq or America?
voter apathy purple fingers Iraq elections
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)