previous post next post  

Just in case you missed it.

By The Armorer on December 18, 2005 | | Comments (14)

The President tonight. No, Raymond, we aren't there yet.

Since the removal of Saddam, this war – like other wars in our history – has been difficult. The mission of American troops in urban raids and desert patrols – fighting Saddam loyalists and foreign terrorists – has brought danger and suffering and loss. This loss has caused sorrow for our whole Nation – and it has led some to ask if we are creating more problems than we are solving.

That is an important question, and the answer depends on your view of the war on terror. If you think the terrorists would become peaceful if only America would stop provoking them, then it might make sense to leave them alone.

This is not the threat I see. I see a global terrorist movement that exploits Islam in the service of radical political aims – a vision in which books are burned, and women are oppressed, and all dissent is crushed. Terrorist operatives conduct their campaign of murder with a set of declared and specific goals – to de-moralize free nations … to drive us out of the Middle East … to spread an empire of fear across that region … and to wage a perpetual war against America and our friends. These terrorists view the world as a giant battlefield – and they seek to attack us wherever they can. This has attracted al Qaida to Iraq, where they are attempting to frighten and intimidate America into a policy of retreat.

The terrorists do not merely object to American actions in Iraq and elsewhere – they object to our deepest values and our way of life. And if we were not fighting them in Iraq … in Afghanistan … in Southeast Asia … and in other places, the terrorists would not be peaceful citizens – they would be on the offense, and headed our way.

September 11th, 2001 required us to take every emerging threat to our country seriously, and it shattered the illusion that terrorists attack us only after we provoke them. On that day, we were not in Iraq … we were not in Afghanistan … but the terrorists attacked us anyway – and killed nearly 3,000 men, women, and children in our own country. My conviction comes down to this: We do not create terrorism by fighting the terrorists. We invite terrorism by ignoring them. And we will defeat the terrorists by capturing and killing them abroad … removing their safe havens … and strengthening new allies like Iraq and Afghanistan in the fight we share.

I'd rather fight them over there, than over here. Giving them what they want hasn't worked (see the 90's), so, absent capitulation, let's take the fight to them.

Otay. There's a long way to go. But it wasn't a short road to get here, either.

The Ostrich Option isn't a good one. Nor is surrender.

And no, this *isn't* same old same old. Everything *prior* to 9/11 was same old, same old. Just because it's more comfortable, and doesn't make us realize that it *is* still a dangerous world out there, let's not turn back the clock. Let's finish this job.

Share This Article:

Categories:

14 Comments

By Alan on December 18, 2005 9:12 PM
I don't really disagree at all except on the idea of fighting them over there. Why would a shadowly cell-based international terrorist organization take the fight to where the losing battle is, over there? If there was a greater organization - why is it not poisoning the water in Boston or putting a dirty bomb in Phoenix? Why has it not for four years? I am not writing this as a GOTCHA! at all. It just makes no sense to me, like a bad but real second rate James Bond enemy. Are they far weaker than they were and this is the final stamping out? Or are they sleeping for a decade to blow up a dam? Don't take this wrong. Iraq election good. I know you don't know any more than I do but it all really has me.
 
By Christine on December 18, 2005 9:19 PM
I totally agree with you John.
 
By dfp21 on December 18, 2005 11:49 PM
One attack achieved the death of 3500 Americans. For that they lost control of 1 country (Afghanistan) and 30 million people who they can't treat as slaves anymore, plus they lost the colaboration of 1 other country (Iraq) of 26 million people who can't be used as pawns anymore, plus they're horrified by the inroads of democracy in Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, and the capitulation if Libya. I'd say the attack against the American mainland was a mistake of bilblical proportions that they are reluctant to repeat.
 
By cw4billt on December 19, 2005 12:19 AM
Alan - Quite a few reasons make Iraq the theater-of-choice for the terrs. 1. Osama and cohorts seriously underestimated the geographical size of the United States and its financial infrastructure. Remember, the intent of the 9/11 attacks was to cripple us with a few well-placed strikes. They screwed up--they learned from their mistake. 2. Logistically, it's a lot easier (and cheaper) to infiltrate fighters and ordnance into Iraq--it's surrounded by countries which are either sympathetic to the Wahabi or to their game plan--than into the US. They've taken a page from the VC playbook and are now making more extensive use of tunnels, particularly along the border with Syria. 3. They've taken another page from the Southeast Asian playbook by shifting their focus. Now, they intend to win by sapping our will to stay the course and doing it with the willing connivance of the MSM. And, given the tenor of the reporting out of Iraq, willing connivance best describes it. 4. Why haven't they whacked us again in the four years since 9/11? They've tried. They got caught. 5. Finally, they may have decided that a large strike (or strikes) inside the US would only succeed in getting us royally pissed. Don't take that to mean I don't think they'll try to hit us again, because there's some really odd events happening along the Arizona-Mexican border. And when the Border Patrol started using an acronym--OTM (Other Than Mexican)--to describe agent encounters with large groups of infiltrators, that told me the problem is neither isolated nor minor.
 
By Fred on December 19, 2005 1:18 AM
Gangrene is a disease of wounded tissue. Healthy tissue is not affected except by invasion from diseased tissue. Al Queda is the same way. Their bases have been in failed states. Creating healthy nations defeats them. Look at the map of the mideast and southeast Asia from Israel to India. Those great democracies have been at opposite ends of what was an open wound. There are now stitches in that open wound at Afghanistan and Iraq. The remaining bad actors are surrounded. Syria has Israel on one side and Iraq on the other. Iran is between Iraq and Afghanistan. Pakistan is between Afghanistan and India. Some of these states are coming around faster than others. Impressive strategery at work here.
 
By kat-missouri on December 19, 2005 2:33 AM
And, let me add, the reason that Iraq is more important than attacking the US, besides all those listed by Bill is that it is in the hert of the Pan Islamist hoped nation. Baghdad and Iraq were once the seat of the caliphate they wished to create. It is, in part, an ideological victory that is either ours or theirs. It must be ours. Secondly, Bill outlines why it is easier for the terrorists to come into Iraq. by the same token, if you looked at Afghanistan and the challenges of a land locked mountainous terrain for our troops to fight a sustained battle there is even more difficult. Had we not split into Iraq, I believe we would have seen the same sort of battle going on in Afghanistan and people would be complaining. For us, Iraq offers the same opportunities, but maybe more. There is a port that we control. The terrain is more friendly. There are highways and air bases that are naturally arranged for supply and support. There are no mountains or narrow paths that can thwart our movements or armor. We can go everywhere. That means we have more operations that actually result in full contact which results in casualties at a faster rate, but it certainly beats 15k over ten years. We also forced them to split their forces, material and money. Besides being close on the heels of Zawahiri, why do you think they constantly complain about the lack of money? This is basically forcing the up tempo of op tempo which they cannot hope to match. It's all good even if it is painful. It means, frankly, we are going to exhaust them early on and make this less than a 50 or 100 year war. Ten years from now, people will be talking about the demise of radical Islam as any alternate or viable force or ideological source in the ME. Maybe sooner. Call me an optimist. :)
 
By SangerM on December 19, 2005 6:01 AM
After what feels like weeks traveling, I'm home. Glad to be here too, for lots of reasons I'll discuss elsewhere. RE above: That was a good speech. I think that message, stated that simply, needs to be repeated every day in every medium by as many people as possible. I like the comments above, too, very thoughtful stuff. RE why there rather than here, 1) because that's where they are, and 2) if they are engaged where they thought they were safe, then they can't focus sufficient attention on here. We also made it harder for them to get here, as I learned this weekend--at least through casual use of international airlines, and that means their intelligence collection efforts are not going to go as well and as easily for them as they have in the past. At least that's my current pleasant fantasy. And 3), on a very much more personal level, no one should ever be allowed to feel it can attack the US here and stay secure within its own borders or staging site. Also, while I could be wrong: I presume that people working at places where the BIG PLANS are made are at least as smart as me, and have at least as much accurate information as I do about what's going on in the world. And it's not that I know a lot, nor that I'm all that smart, but even I can make a good SWAG at who the enemies are and where they are and what we ought to be thinking about doing to them. And if my simple mind can come up with a few pretty good ideas, than I assume (and expect) that the people in BIG PLANS world have come up with a lot of better ideas, and further, that they are taking action to implement those ideas. Also, to be clear, I fully expect that I don't know a good deal of what those plans are, which is only good common sense--I don't matter all that much in the grand-wot scheme of things, and I shouldn't be privy to all that much. I think it the height of self-conceit for any one of us to assume that the people (individually or in groups) working on these problems at the highest levels are stupider or less competent than we are. I am no whiz-bang super genius, but I'm pretty smart for a dumb-'ole publicly-educated East Coast kid, and I know a lot of people I consider a whole lot smarter than me who are engaged in the business and profession of defending our country (and by extension, the free world) from evil people. And yes, Virginia, there really are people who want nothing more than to destroy everything in the world that is good and free and clean and NOT under their control. I also firmly believe that the current war really is WWIV (granting that the Cold War was WWIII), and that we should be doing exactly what we are doing: taking the war to the enemy wherever, whenever, and however we can, "unto the end of time" if necessary. No quarter, no compromise, no surrender. In fact, I fully expect that the next battleground is already being prepped and that we are looking both east and west from Iraq, just waiting to see how the current plans play out. I had thought Israel would handle Syria, but the Lebanese may be drawn into that. As for Iran, I know what I believe needs to be done, and I am absolutely certain that the people in charge are way ahead of me. V/R
 
By cw4(ret)billt on December 19, 2005 10:17 AM
kat picked up on an excellent point. If they lose Iraq to a democratically-elected secular government, it will be extremely difficult to pass *that* off as inshallah, let alone serve as a rallying cry to increase their recruiting base.
 
By kat-missouri on December 19, 2005 10:46 AM
Just a little reminder about why fighting terrorists in Iraq is all good, Zarqawi in his own words THEIR NUMBERS CONTINUE TO BE SMALL, COMPARED TO THE LARGE NATURE OF THE EXPECTED BATTLE. WE KNOW THAT THERE ARE ENOUGH GOOD GROUPS AND JIHAD IS CONTINUING, DESPITE THE NEGATIVE RUMORS. WHAT IS PREVENTING US FROM MAKING A GENERAL CALL TO ARMS IS THE FACT THAT THE COUNTRY OF IRAQ HAS NO MOUNTAINS IN WHICH TO SEEK REFUGE, OR FOREST IN WHICH TO HIDE. OUR PRESENCE IS APPARENT AND OUR MOVEMENT IS OUT IN THE OPEN. EYES ARE EVERYWHERE. THE ENEMY IS BEFORE US AND THE SEA IS BEHIND US. MANY IRAQIS WOULD HONOR YOU AS A GUEST AND GIVE YOU REFUGE, FOR YOU ARE A MUSLIM BROTHER; HOWEVER, THEY WILL NOT ALLOW YOU TO MAKE THEIR HOMES A BASE FOR OPERATIONS OR A SAFE HOUSE. PEOPLE WHO WILL ALLOW YOU TO DO SUCH THINGS ARE VERY RARE, RARER THAN RED SULFUR. THEREFORE, IT HAS BEEN EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO LODGE AND KEEP SAFE A NUMBER OF BROTHERS, AND ALSO TRAIN NEW RECRUITS. PRAISED BE TO ALLAH, yes, praise Allah or God. I always listen to the enemy when he says something is not good for him. ;) Seems logical to do it, don't it?
 
By SangerM on December 19, 2005 12:23 PM
Kat, you are always worth reading, but today, you are especially cogent. Your insight-o-meter must be pegged out somethin' fierce!
 
By Jon The Mechanic on December 19, 2005 1:59 PM
This is why I love you guys. I get my intelligent rebuttal points from people like Kat, John and *under his breath* Bill
 
By cw4(ret)billt on December 19, 2005 3:38 PM
Including li'l ol' *me* in the same sentence referencing the lovely kat-missouri and the illustrious John of Argghhh! Non sum dignus, non sum dignus... (expressing one's humility in Latin is just soooo much more satisfying, veritasne?)
 
By John of Argghhh! on December 19, 2005 3:56 PM
Heh. Yeah, you were hired for your looks...
 
By cw4(ret)billt on December 19, 2005 8:00 PM
Got over like a fat rat on the deal, too, didn't you? Heh. The last time anybody hired me for my looks, the best scenes wound up in the outtakes...
 
© 2008 John Donovan
All rights reserved.