|
from The Federalist
The usual Demo-gogue suspects – Kennedy, Kerry and company – are
increasing the tenor of their demands that the Bush administration commit
to a timetable for withdrawing American troops from Iraq. A few misguided
Republicans have even signed on to this legislative folly. Insisting
that we cap our military support for the new Iraqi government is a
dangerous political ploy intended to help Demos rally their peacenik
constituency in the run-up to next year’s midterm elections. Dangerous,
because challenging the administration to agree to a timetable only
emboldens Jihadis, who would very much like to move the frontlines of
the Long War from their turf to ours.
The Demos know President George Bush will not agree to such a
timetable. As the president has said repeatedly, “Our exit strategy is to exit when our mission is complete.” Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld protests that any such deadline for withdrawal would “throw
a lifeline to terrorists.” Indeed, but it is always easier to sell
anti-war rhetoric like “give peace a chance” than it is to advocate
peace through superior firepower, and to use force in defense of critical
U.S. national interests.
For eight long years, the Clinton administration pursued a policy of
appeasement, particularly in regard to Middle Eastern policy and pursuit
of Islamic terrorists. Terrorists were classified as mere “criminals” then, including those Jihadi fanatics who first bombed the WTC’s north
tower in 1993, who bombed the Khobar Towers in 1996, who bombed our
embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 and who bombed the USS Cole in
2000. Consequently, Clinton’s negligent inaction emboldened this enemy,
and the result was a devastating attack on our homeland just months
after the Bush administration took office in 2001.
“Peace” had its chance under Clinton, but President Bush made the
difficult decision to give war a chance. Remarkably, the outcome has,
to date, pre-empted any further attacks on U.S. soil – which was, after
all, its primary objective. The transition from an ineffectual policy
of containment to one of pre-emption was the most significant strategic
military shift since WWII. To be sure, there have been setbacks, and
President Bush bears a heavy and heartfelt burden for those uniformed
Patriots who have given their lives to protect ours.
If we did check out of Iraq, as suggested by a growing chorus on the
Left, al-Qa’ida and other Islamists will not only rule that nation
– they will eventually control the entire region, with the possible
exception of Israel. The “exit timetable” crowd knows this, but that
hasn’t prevented them from using this issue as political fodder – and from using it to undermine support for our military personnel and
our operations in the Middle East. Of course, this places both those
personnel and our national security in peril.
One need only ask the exit advocates, “Exit where, and for how
long?” Because we didn’t finish the job in Operation Desert Storm,
we had to return with Operation Iraqi Freedom. Reality dictates that
if we don’t finish the job now, we’ll have to return again, and likely
at a far greater cost in terms of American lives.
Not only should we not set a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq, but we
should seek to establish an alliance with the Iraqi government in order
to maintain a strong military presence in the region. How long? As long
as there are Islamofascists bent on detonating a nuclear device in some
U.S. urban center and sending our nation into economic ruin.
According to The Patriot’s well-placed military and intelligence sources,
one closely guarded objective in securing a free Iraq is to establish
a forward-deployed presence in the Middle East – a presence that
would certainly include personnel but whose primary component would
be massive military-equipment depots that could be tapped for future
rapid-deployment military operations in the region.
This forward-base objective is critical, given that it will ensure
our military presence in the heart of Jihadistan, and an ability to
project force in the region quickly without having to ramp up via sea
and airlift. This alone will pay rich dividends by way of maintaining
peace through preparedness.
The new Iraqi government will likely extend an invitation to the
U.S. to establish two bases in southern Iraq now that, as you may
recall, our friends the Saudis have expelled our fighting forces from
their country. The proposed base locations are nowhere near Iraqi urban
centers – which is to say, they are highly securable. We expect this
new military presence to consist primarily of limited personnel, but
with substantial assets transferred from bases in Germany and elsewhere
in Europe.
Of course, those who claim that the U.S. military presence in the Middle
East is the problem will wail about the establishment of permanent base
operations in the region. Fact is, however, until the last Israeli is
dead and the West no longer dominates the world economy (and, thus,
culture), Jihadis will not rest.
Previously, this column has outlined the nature of asymmetric
threats like Islamist terrorist regimes -- some given safe harbor
by Islamic states, some seeking to create new Islamofascist
states. (See the three-part series on U.S. national security at
FederalistPatriot.US/Alexander) On the importance of our holding the
frontline against Jihadistan in Iraq, former Secretary of State Henry
Kissinger recently wrote: “The war in Iraq is less about geopolitics than
about the clash of ideologies, culture and religious beliefs. Because
of the long reach of the Islamist challenge, the outcome in Iraq will
have an even deeper significance than that in Vietnam. If a Taliban-type
government or a fundamentalist radical state were to emerge in Baghdad
or any part of Iraq, shock waves would ripple through the Islamic
world. Radical forces in Islamic countries or Islamic minorities in
non-Islamic countries would be emboldened in their attacks on existing
governments. The safety and internal stability of all societies within
reach of militant Islam would be imperiled.”
Indeed, the safety and stability of the free world would be imperiled.
This is the Long War, Islamofascism is the enemy, and Iraq is the front
line. If we are serious about pre-empting Jihadi terrorism (despite Demo
political mischief), we must not abandon Iraq. Of course, if we follow
the Kennedy and Kerry plan, Islamofascists, who will control the region,
won’t have to attack on U.S. soil, they will just cut off U.S. oil – and bring the entire West to its knees – until it submits to Islam.
Of course, no Western political leader is going allow that scenario – not even Jacques Chirac or Gerhard Schroeder. These Jihadi cave dwellers,
the Islamists who fly planes into buildings and bomb Iraqi children
at open markets, don’t share Western (predominantly Judeo-Christian)
values. To be sure, they have no compunction about reducing your standard
of living to something less than their subsistence – and they will,
given the opportunity.
|
