| FEDERALIST PERSPECTIVE
Top of the fold...
It's high time for some right thinking in rebuttal to those
objecting to our imminent assault on Iraqi as we prosecute our
war against Jihadistan. Despite those who would insist we are
"about to go to war," we have been at war since 11 September,
2001. Our principal adversary is not Iraq, but Jihadistan,
that borderless nation of Islamic extremists with global reach,
inhabited by al-Qa'ida terrorists and other Islamists who are
targeting the U.S.
The "Islamic World" of the Quran recognizes no political
borders. While orthodox Muslims (those conforming to the teachings
of the "pre-Medina" Quran) do not support acts of terrorism or mass
murder, very large sects within the Islamic World are indoctrinated
with the "post-Mecca" Quran and Hadith (Mohammed's teachings),
which call for "Jihad" or "Holy War" against all "the enemies of
God." (Thus, why The Federalist terms this enemy "Jihadistan,"
or "nation of holy war."
Shortly after al-Qa'ida's 9-11 attacks, President George Bush said:
"This WAR on terrorism will be fought on a number of fronts,
in different ways. The front lines will look different from the
wars of the past." A year later, Iraq's support for al-Qa'ida
was clear, prompting Mr. Bush to declare, "Facing clear evidence
of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun
-- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." In his most
recent address to the nation, President Bush said, "It would take
just one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country
to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known."
Indeed, this conflict won't be resolved diplomatically, and
the war al-Qa'ida launched on our soil 17 months ago won't be
won defensively: this enemy can only be defeated in offensive,
preemptive strikes. As Prussian general and military philosopher
Karl von Clausewitz wrote in the early 19th century: "War is the
continuation of policy by other means. ... The best form of defense
is attack." The most effective policy to defend our homeland front
against al-Qa'ida, is taking offensive action against al-Qa'ida's
state-sponsors, and that means in this phase of the campaign,
"regime change" in Iraq.
But some Sociocrats and their cadre of Leftmedia talkingheads are
doing what they do best -- attempting to convert this perilous
campaign into political capital. Their arguments are so ludicrous
that even Demo Sen. Evan Bayh complained: "I don't understand those
who want to wait until the threat [from Iraq] is imminent. Do we
wait until the missiles are launched, until the smallpox is in
the country? The consequences of error could be catastrophic."
The Federalist has compiled a list of the Left's complaints and
objections to the prosecution of the warfront with Iraq. Let
us disabuse them of their self-serving and courage-deficient
delusions:
Look who we were supporting in the 80s... It was 24 years ago
this week, February 11, 1979, that a stated enemy of the U.S.,
the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, seized power in Iran, and seized
the American embassy, thereby inaugurating the modern Islamic
revolutionary movement. The Carter administration decided that
one way to contain that revolution was to keep supporting Iraq's
war with Iran. Protecting legitimate U.S. national interests
sometimes makes for strange bedfellows around the globe. However,
two wrongs -- supporting murderous regimes then and now -- don't
make a right.
Bush is a cowboy -- we can't go to Iraq without a unified
"international community" front... Perhaps the most widespread
mantra of the Left is to accuse President Bush of having a
"cowboy mentality" -- a foreign policy propensity to go-it-alone,
not to mention imperialistic ambitions. The President is sworn
to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United
States." This includes imminent threats to national security, with
or without international consensus. Fortunately, an international
consensus has emerged, "old Europe" notwithstanding.
Iraq is not an imminent threat... The information presented to
the UN Security Council by Sec. of State Colin Powell last week
is just the tip of the iceberg. For 16 months, the exposure of
numerous connections between Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime and
Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'ida network provides more than adequate
justification for a preemptive strike against Iraq. And the WMD
threat from Iraq is not symmetric; rather, it is asymmetric in
that there is imminent danger that Saddam has already provided,
or certainly will provide WMD to surrogates like al-Qa'ida, who
will then deploy or detonate those weapons in a major U.S. urban
center -- or that of an ally.
There is no evidence of WMD in Iraq -- the UN has found
nothing... "No evidence"? Once again, the Left subscribes
to the notion that if you repeat a lie often enough, it will
become the truth. As for "finding nothing," UN inspectors will
find little without Iraq's mandated cooperation -- and Iraq has
NOT cooperated. Propagating the lie, the French unveiled a plan
to triple the number of UN inspectors in Iraq. UN Chief Weapons
Inspector Hans Blix panned the suggestion: "The principal problem
is not the number of inspectors but rather the active co-operation
of the Iraqi side, as we have said many times." The U.S. has now
presented ample evidence that Iraq is in possession of WMD --
most recently in the very public forum of Secretary Colin Powell's
briefing of the UN Security Council.
As for Saddam's humorous decree yesterday banning the production of
WMD in Iraq, and ordering his ministers to "take whatever measures
are necessary and punish people who do not adhere to it," that
order has already been issued, and Saddam is at the front of the
line for castigation.
We talk with North Korea, so why not Iraq?... Many pundits have
expressed concern that the Bush administration is devoting too
much time to the issue of Iraq, while the more pressing issue
of the North Korean nuclear program looms large, but is only
given lip service. (As we recall, President Bush included North
Korea prominently among the three nations forming the "Axis of
Evil.") What, exactly, has "talk" achieved in either case?
Of course, there is a substantial difference in motivations of
Baghdad and Pyongyang. While Saddam Hussein maintains ties with
terrorist organizations bent on the destruction of the West,
posing a clear and present danger to the national security of
the United States, Kim Jong Il is -- not for the first time --
applying pressure to his neighbors and the U.S. in order to obtain
economic concessions.
However, no one is ignoring the North Korean threat. The
U.S. representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency,
Kenneth Brill, noted that "the time is right for the Security
Council to begin considering this issue, [because Pyongyang's]
nuclear weapons program poses a direct threat to international
peace and security. ... [The threat that North Korea] will sell
fissile material to rogue states and terrorists is too great to
ignore." Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has already raised
the specter of this scenario; look for significant attention to
be paid to the Korean Peninsula in the aftermath of a second Gulf
War.
This war is just about oil... While some detractors suggest
prosecuting the Iraqi front is solely about oil, in the Middle
East, oil is intrinsic to regional stability, and regional
stability is intrinsic to the national security interests of the
United States -- including U.S. demand for Middle East oil.
Prosecuting Iraq will invite escalated terrorist attacks...
Indeed, the front with Iraq in our war with Jihadistan is the most
perilous yet. At best, successfully disarming Iraq will cut off one
major WMD resource for al-Qa'ida and other terrorist organizations.
At worst, al-Qa'ida has already been supplied some WMD by Iraq.
For sure, al-Qa'ida IS planning new attacks against the U.S. using
various conventional and WMD assaults, with the objective of
reducing our economy to ruins. Some analysts at the highest
levels of the intelligence and military communities believe that
al-Qa'ida will, eventually, detonate a nuclear weapon (not just
a radiological dispersion device but a fission weapon) in a major
U.S. urban center -- and that this attack IS inevitable.
Will the prosecution of the Iraqi front "invite" these attacks --
make the inevitable happen sooner rather than later? Perhaps it
will accelerate some conventional, biological or chemical attacks.
Disarming Iraq will, in effect, disarm a great number of al-Qa'ida
operatives -- but it will NOT disarm all of them. However,
failing to put Saddam out of business will ensure that al-Qa'ida
operatives are fully armed.
The good news -- for the 17 months since 9-11, al-Qa'ida
"sleeper cells" now positioned in the U.S. have been quiet.
Our intelligence sources estimate that there may not be enough of
those cells to expend them on conventional attacks (car bombs,
homicide bombers, et al.). They conclude this means that those
cells have not yet acquired nuclear-strike capability.
The Iraqi front with Jihadistan is replete with pitfalls. There are
going to be many casualties -- both military and civilian. Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declared: "There are moments in history
when the judgment and the resolve of free nations are put to
the test. This is such a moment. The security environment we
are entering is the most dangerous the world has seen. The lives
of our children and grandchildren could well hang in the balance."
President Bush understands the enormous risks and implications
of this conflict. No one has suggested that prosecuting the
front with Iraq is a panacea; the war with Jihadistan does not
end there.
|
(A
publication of Ripley Enterprises, marketing toward your success, click
on lion to our homepage.)
In
the Dawg House:
is
a publication of Ripley Enterprises. To get your copy of The
Port Angeles Journal in plain text format emailed, or our weekly
faxed version, local numbers only please), you can subscribe by sending
your email address and/or fax number with your $29.95 fee for a one year
subscription just make your check or money orders out to:
