Parsing the War on Terror

I have, of late, had a number of conversations with my left-leaning friends on the progress and nature of the War on Terror. First, let me say that errors, numerous ones in fact, have been made. Second, every Presidential administration since Jimmy Carter, has failed us in the battle for our very existence. Even one of my personal heroes, Ronald Reagan, bears fault in this regard. That all said, that we are at war is not in doubt, although Kool-Aid drinkers from both sides of the political spectrum differ as to what can now be done to combat Islamic fascism. The political right apparently believes that we can contain the spread of this abhorrent evil without protracted killing, and the political left seems to think that this is a job for law enforcement, which will dissipate if we just bring the troops home. The right is populated by people who are afraid to do the killing that needs to be done for fear of seeming to be unmitigated warmongers. Meanwhile, the left has what appears to be a majority of people who are very smart, well-meaning compassionate souls who are simply unaware that there are carnivores loose in the world who cannot be assuaged with niceties of any sort.

Many people, I am sure, will take umbrage at my statement that this war has been going on for at least 30 years. As a quick refresher let us remember that the Iranian hostage crisis was undertaken by radical mullahs. The Beirut bombings of embassies and, later, a USMC barracks were ordered by militant Islamists. Five years later an Islamic insurgency group occupied the Philippine island of Mindanao, and American forces from the Rapid Deployment Force fought protracted battles to unseat them. As the nineties dawned the World Trade Center was bombed, and as it ended US embassies in Africa were leveled. This was followed by the attack on the USS Cole and, finally, and most spectacularly, the events of 9/11. This is by no means a comprehensive list. It leaves out the various airline hijackings, and, in one case, an act of piracy, that made headlines, as well as the reprehensible actions at the Munich Olympics. I listed them as I did so as to highlight direct attacks on US interests and personnel.

The administrations of Carter, Reagan and the first George Bush seemed to think that the emerging threat was something that would prove to be bothersome, but that it could be contained. By the early nineties the official policy had become one of tracking, catching and prosecuting these miscreants as if they were bank robbers. That notion effected the Clinton administration response to the multiple terrorist attacks which occurred on his watch. He ordered cruise missile attacks on sites at times that would minimize casualties, but still send a message. Most notably, he specifically turned down two or three opportunities to capture or, I would argue more reasonably, kill Osama bin Laden. The official word was that before the '98 embassy bombings there was not sufficient evidence to convict him in a court of law. This attitude apparently reached its zenith when a secret data mining operation uncovered evidence of a cell operating inside the US before 9/11. Mohammad Atta, and several other 9/11 hijackers, were raised as persons of interest by the members of Operation Able Danger, but were allegedly told to forget that because no legal right existed to investigate them. No response, not even a perfunctory one, was made to counter the attack on the Cole.

George W. Bush took office after an election that divided the nation. Save your crayon letters about the vote count. The New York Times undertook an extensive, exhaustive investigation and determined Bush won Florida by about 1,000 votes. That did not make multiple front pages, or any at all in fact, because it wouldn't sell papers. So, anyway, the Bush administration took office and proceeded to do absolutely nothing about the Cole. Word is that any response would only be seen as wagging the dog. The two sides can not seem to agree if material gathered in FBI investigations, that uncovered suspicious instances of Middle Easterners taking flying courses, was passed along to the incoming administration. The FBI dropped the ball in some form, whatever the outcome, because people wanting to learn to fly, but not land, airliners should have sounded every alarm bell we have. The most prolific, if albeit asinine statement I have heard, is that 9/11 happened when Bush was president, so it's all his fault. That's akin to saying multiple people stepped over a crime victim lying in the street, but the doctor who saw him in the ER hours later is solely responsible for his death from blood loss. I am not arguing that focus was lost by the Bush administration, it was, but they do not bear all, or even most of the responsibility for the mess we are in. They oversaw the tragic events of 9/11, botched an opportunity to deliver a knock-out blow in Afghanistan and then compounded that mistake by refusing to fight the war we are in, the way it must be fought, in Iraq.

I do not pretend to have all the answers, nor, even, a plurality of the questions. What I do know is that the finger pointing, for political advantage, must stop if we are to survive as a nation and a people. If those who vociferously avow hatred for President Bush would focus that animus at our common enemy, in more than just a yellow ribbon kind of way, we could defeat this all encompassing threat. And if those who religiously parrot the republican party line would begin holding all our elected officials responsible, not just the ones across the doctrinal aisle, we could unite. Sadly, the amount of killing which must be done is unpalatable to those in power, on either side, and the liberal apologists somehow have failed to learn history's lessons regarding appeasement. Winston Churchill famously said, "Appeasement is feeding the crocodile in the hopes that he eats you last." I can only hope that it is not too late for the loyal opposition to learn that lesson, and that the party in power accepts the heavy-lifting, much as Harry Truman did, and does what must be done.

Generals Gathered in Their Messes

In the past week, six flag officers have come forth to express the desire that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld be fired, or, failing that, forced to resign. These generals come from the Army and Marines. All served honorably, several with distinction. Between them they served for a total of more than 200 years. They number among their ranks the former commander of US Central Command, Marine General Anthony Zinni, Lt General Greg Newbold USMC, the former Director of Operations for the Joint Chiefs, Army Maj General John Riggs, formerly the Pentagon's Objective Task Force director, Army Maj General Paul Eaton 2003-2004 commander of Iraqi troop training, Maj General Charles Swannack Jr, former commander in Iraq of the storied 82nd Airborne Division and finally, Maj General John Batiste, former commander of The Big Red One in Iraq. They are all patriots, and they are all wrong.

The liberal legislators, and their attendant members of the press, touting these former servicemen have forgotten two things: first, being a general does not make you a gentleman anymore than being elected to congress makes you honorable, and second, prior service, even above average service, does not make you infallible. Of the six only Maj General Batiste has any true credibility. It has been widely reported that he turned down a third star to protest the Secretary of Defense's strategy, or lack thereof to be more precise. He told USAToday that Rumsfeld should step down because, "he ignored sound military advice about how to secure Iraq after Baghdad fell." If his words had come as he retired, and suggestive of conscience, they would have carried possibly significant worth. Coming after the words of longtime critics, his animus comes off as merely expediency towards some as yet unnamed goal.

Longtime critic General Anthony Zinni's goal is anything other than unnamed. He has been a vocal opponent of the streamlined military Secretary Rumsfeld has long proposed, and now has a book to hawk. Maj General Swannack has suggested the Secretary should resign because "Rumsfeld had micromanaged the war." Maj General Paul Eaton, echoing general Batiste, wrote in The New York Times last month that Rumsfeld was, "incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically." Lt. General Newbold voiced disdain for the Secretary of Defense because he considered Iraq an "unnecessary war." Maj General Riggs only suggested that "Rumsfeld and his close aides should be cleared out." Seemingly tough words from truly tough guys when first they are heard, but empty rhetoric when inspected closely. That's because these men do not exist in a vacuum, contrary to CBS News, and their ilk. Over 4,ooo other flag officers, including Colin Powell, have offered no comment, and those best able to judge, Generals Tommy Franks and Richard Meyers and Lt General Michael DeLong, have made unqualified statements of support for Secretary Rumsfeld.

The major news outlets have acted as if this small percentage of generals is unheard of in recorded history. In fact, world history, not just American history is littered with such examples. In just the last 50 years of the last century multiple high-profile cases made headlines. General Curtis LeMay feuded with JFK, while President Truman relieved Medal of Honor winner General Douglas MacArthur of command. Even the media darling Wesley Clark was removed from command by President Clinton, albeit more diplomatically than MacArthur, for voicing displeasure with his civilian bosses. The military, especially generals who are used to getting their own way understandably, always believes they can manage a war, any war, more effectively than their civilian overlords. Read 1776 by David McCullough and you will see generals and their civilian masters feuding even before we were a country. President Lincoln removed General McClellan for much the same offenses, and Custer was demoted and sent west to meet his destiny for exactly the same infraction. This is not new, nor is it, in this case, systemic or coordinated. It simply is what it appears to be: a group of disaffected men expressing displeasure that their brilliance was not better recognized. If these six generals felt so strongly that the Secretary of Defense was incompetent wouldn't their honor demand that they resign publicly? It would, but tellingly none did.

Secretary Rumsfeld has made mistakes, to be sure, but he has also done an admirable job fighting two wars simultaneously. My gripe is that he has not allowed the military to fight the war that needs to be fought, on the "no quarter asked, none given" terms by which it needs to be fought. That too, is not his fault, or rather not his alone. That is the fault of the culture of a government that does not have the stomach to suffer the attacks that would come if we were to fight a war that means killing the enemy and destroying his land until he can no longer fight, or forces his civilian leadership to surrender. Dresden and Hiroshima, or even Omaha Beach are politically unacceptable today. That is fodder for another column though. Secretary Rumsfeld's transgression, at least in the eys of the "flagged six" truly is that he rocked the proverbial boat. He took over the Department of Defense as an executive, not a legislator, and the military, which abhors change, balked. These generals are just the vocal manifestation of that. When Colonel H.R. McMasters writes his next book you can be sure he will make note of this period of time, and the "flagged six" are merely using the political acumen they acquired to seem to be on the right side of it. Time will tell, I am sure, that the Secretary of Defense was trying to fight the next war, and the "flagged six" were stuck in the last.

What Would Jose Do?

On August 4, 2001, a Saudi national, Mohamed al-Qahtani, arriving on a flight which originated in the United Arab Emirates, was referred for secondary inspection upon landing at the Orlando International Airport. He was referred to the screening because he had not correctly filled out a mandatory customs form, due to a purported inability to speak English. The Immigration and Naturalization Services inspector with whom al-Qahtani then came into contact admitted that a search of al-Qahtani's luggage turned up nothing suspicious. Likewise, a check of the relevant watch-list data bases turned up no evidence of wrong doing. The inspector, Jose Melendez-Perez, a 26 year honorable, combat veteran of the US Army also agreed that the suspect's answers to his questions were not, in and of themselves, enough to deny him entry to the US. However, after an exhaustive interview Melendez-Perez denied al-Qahtani entry, against the advice of co-workers, and escorted him to a Dubai-bound plane. As al-Qahtani stepped into the waiting plane, he paused, turned to Melendez-Perez and, in perfect English, said, "I'll be back."

Mohamed al-Qahtani is indeed back. Well, not quite. He is currently a guest of the US government at Guantanamo Bay. You see al-Qahtani was captured in Afghanistan, while fighting US ground forces. Under interrogation he has admitted that he was to be the 20th hijacker on September 11th. A review of the cell phone records of 9/11 hijacker Mohammad Atta seems to bear this out as he was at the Orlando Airport at the exact time al-Qahtani was being interviewed by Jose Melendez-Perez. In fact, before al-Qahtani decided to stop answering questions he told Mr Melendez-Perez that someone was there to pick him up, but refused to answer who. We now know that Jose's instincts were correct and that his actions undoubtedly saved numerous lives. The valiant, heroic passengers of United Flight 93 might not have been able to thwart the hijacker's plans if their plane, like the other three, had had 5 terrorists aboard.

We now know for a fact that the passengers of Flight 93 caused the plane to crash before it reached its intended target. Whether that target was the Capitol or the White House is still unknown, but tapes played during the sentencing stage of Zacarias Moussaoui's trial forever put to bed any doubt that the ordinary, everyday passengers of Flight 93 fought back against their hijackers. Tapes played to a packed courtroom proved that, even knowing the odds against them, they banded together, men and women from disparate backgrounds, and fought in the finest traditions of the American citizen soldier. They repeatedly rammed a drink cart against the locked cockpit door. At least one hijacker was dispatched to his date with Allah by Americans who, warned of the earlier 9/11 attacks via cell phone conversations, refused to go like sheep to the slaughter. They had to know that they had scant chance of surviving the confrontation. And yet, armed with pots of boiling water, a beverage cart and accumulated odds and ends they attacked their hijackers and fought, literally, to the death.

Zacarias Moussaoui originally asserted that he was to be the 20th hijacker on 9/11. Since then he has declared that he and "shoe-bomber" Richard Reed were to be the hijackers in another 9/11-like attack. What he was honestly here for, we will probably never know. What we do know is that after he was captured the FBI found phone numbers for 11 of the 19 hijackers in his possession. We also know that while taking fight training in Minnesota he expressed no desire to learn how to land. He has, in open court, pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden and admitted being an Al-Qaeda member, with prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks. It is worth noting that he has since recanted the statement regarding prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks.

By now you are, no doubt, wondering why I have combined the events of August 4, 2001, and April 13, 2006. The answer is simple: instead of being given a forum to smirk at the family members of 9/11 victims, Moussaoui should have been denied entry to begin with by an observant INS inspector. We need more men such as Jose Melendez-Perez guarding our points of entry. Had Jose been present when Moussaoui attempted to enter the US I have no doubt he would have been turned away. I have met Jose, twice. He is an unassuming man who, when greeted by a 600 person standing ovation at a luncheon given in his honor, said simply, "I wish my father was here to see this." Jose exhibited common sense and, due to heroic efforts of other patriots, part of a larger plan was altered. We now should exhibit common sense as a nation and alter the future plans of these miscreants who would cut our throats. Any person suspected of ties to the Islamic insurgents should be immediately sent to Guantanamo Bay. Likewise, anyone captured on the field of battle should be remanded to the custody of the military there, or some other such place. There they should stand trial before a military tribunal and, if convicted, summarily executed. No more should we treat the threat from Islamic fascists as if it were a matter to be solved by the FBI and the federal courts. War means fighting and fighting means killing, to paraphrase one of our greatest Civil War generals. You would think that a lesson so dearly learned then, would resonate now. I can only hope that the verdict of death is awarded Moussaoui, even though the appeal process will undoubtedly continue to play out in our living rooms. Instead of seeing terrorists on multiple segments of the nightly news we should see them for who, and what, they are, and send them to the afterlife they so desperately desire.