Pulling the Lever

It is the highest of hypocrisy and partisan demagoguery to suggest that the democrats are in favor of the Islamic terrorists winning this war, or any other. It is not, however, a stretch to state that the terrorists are in favor of the democrats winning. The reasons for this have been addressed by me in earlier posts, but simply stated, the dems and their allies in the press think that the way to end terrorism is to negotiate with the bad guys and use law enforcement resources when transgressions occur. Obviously the terrorists would prefer that tactic, rather than the one currently being endorsed by the republicans. The political landscape is not black and white. There are shades of grey. Joe Lieberman, a former democrat and current independent, is in favor of taking the fight to the terrorists militarily. Republican senators Chuck Hagel-NE, and John Warner-VA are both on record as saying the current policy does not work, and have suggested exploring some sort of phased withdrawal. For the most part though, the republicans want to continue the fight militarily and the dems want to withdraw and negotiate. Negotiate with whom exactly, is still undetermined. Most of the press is with the dems on this, and the media savvy terrorists cannot help but see this everyday.

All the news out of Iraq is bad. Daily we are treated to images of IEDs, blood in the streets, exhausted soldiers and marines humping ever heavier equipment loads, and, just this week, video of an Islamist sniper firing on American troops. The sniper video was given to CNN by a terrorist group. As it opens, Arabic writing fills the screen and we see soldiers and HUMMVEEs in the background. I openly admit I changed the channel at that point. What came next were images of American soldiers running for cover from the unseen attack. CNN defended their actions as simple news reporting, "painful" as that might be. CNN dismissed criticism of the airing by stating that journalistic integrity demanded it be shown. This is the same line of thought offered up by The New York Times when they revealed secret programs designed to thwart and/or capture/kill terrorists. Now, I am not trying to suggest that there is some conspiracy afoot in the media. There is no secret cabal directing the actions of the three networks and the nation's largest newspapers, but there is an underlying mindset. For the most part, those who pursued journalism from the mid 60s on were, and are, liberals. Just like a certain segment of society pursues law, or pipe-fitting, or yes, soldiering, most of those currently engaged as journalists have a certain viewpoint of the world. That viewpoint is, in most cases, liberal or secularly progressive. They, therefore, favor the Democratic Party line. Hence, all the news out of Iraq is bad, which helps the democratic candidates currently up for election, which, in turn, helps the terrorists.

That does not mean I think either the liberal press or the Democratic Party want to help the terrorists. It is ridiculous that I have to state that, but in these polarized times I have to, or risk the scathing, ill-informed comments that are sure to appear. That neither group wants to help the terrorists matters not. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. The press and the dems honestly believe that their course of proposed action is the best; even though reams of historical evidence contradicts them. Neville Chamberlain famously delivered the "Peace in Our Time" speech in 1938. The irony of that was underscored the following year when the German Blitzkrieg slammed into Poland. In 1994 Yasser Arafat and Shimon Peres shared the Nobel Prize for Peace. What a boon that has been for Arab-Israeli relations. And who could forget the negotiations that allowed U.S. forces to leave Vietnam. Millions were slaughtered in the aftermath, some even before all the U.S. helicopters had left the Embassy's roof in Hanoi. I could go on ad nauseum, but I believe these recent historical references prove my point: You cannot negotiate with pure evil. Cessation of hostilities under a cease-fire agreement only gives the evil forces time to regroup and rearm.

Vietnam is worth revisiting for a moment, if only because the major press outlets, and their political masters in the Democratic Party, insist on comparing it to our current operations in Iraq. The comparison is sophistry at best. As retired Colonel Oliver North recently reported, "In Vietnam, U.S. troops faced nearly a quarter million conscripted, but well trained, disciplined and equipped North Vietnamese Army regulars and upwards of 100,000 highly organized Viet Cong insurgents on a daily basis from 1966 onward. Both the NVA and the VC "irregulars" were well indoctrinated in communist ideology, received direct aid from the Soviet Union, communist China and the Warsaw Pact and benefited from logistics and politico-military support networks in neighboring countries. During major campaigns against U.S. and South Vietnamese forces--of which there were many each year--both the NVA and the VC responded to centralized command and control directed by authorities in Hanoi. None of that is true in Iraq." Some may quibble that Syria and Iran are, indeed, politico-military support networks, but the rest of the Colonel's reasoning is unassailable. We have all been lectured to, numerous times, by both the press and liberal democrats on the nature of the insurgency in Iraq. The insurgents operate in cells, independent of each other, so they are particularly hard to counter say the omnipotent one's on the left. The insurgents won't stand up and fight they say. We have to bring the boys home because the insurgents will never fight us symmetrically, left-wingers say. They will continue to kill Americans with IEDs, so we might as well leave them to their business and come home. The American casualty rate is just unacceptable given the insurgents unwillingness to fight us like men, the left avers. If they cannot even bear to call the evil doers what they are, terrorists, how can we expect them to fight them the way they must be fought?

None of that has anything to do with Vietnam, and precious little to do with Iraq. Roughly 2,800 men and women have been killed in Iraq. At least 104 of them this month alone. Over 6,800 were killed during the battle for Iwo Jima during World War II. Frequently Iraqi Freedom opponents will cite the fact that we have now been in Iraq nearly as long as we fought in WWII, but few mention that the casualty figures pale in comparison. Colonel North added in the piece referenced above, "During the Tet Offensive in Vietnam there were more than 2,100 casualties per week." Now consider those numbers and tell me how the casualty rates even compare. Do not get me wrong. As an infantryman, past, now and forever, every soldier's, marine's, sailor's and airmen's death touches me. I make a point to look at The Washington Post's Faces of the Fallen section every day. There are short biographies, synopsis of the action that resulted in their death and photos of every servicemember killed. It never ceases to make me teary-eyed, but the casualty rates are simply picayune compared to the number in every war we ever fought before venturing into this desert. To suggest that we must pull out before the job is done because too many volunteer warriors have lost their lives cheapens not only their deaths, but the deaths of all those who's mothers received telegrams during WWII and Korea, or chaplain's visits during Vietnam.

Michael Smerconish, a local radio show host in Philadelphia, recently took a trip to the Middle East under the aegis of the Department of Defense. He traveled to CentCom and met with everyone in the chain of command. He started with Secretary Rumsfeld, worked his way through various generals and admirals, and eventually wound up with 19 and 20 year old enlisted men. Smerconish, no "stay the course hawk," told his radio audience the thing that most impressed him was how proud these "kids" are of their service, and how much they believe in the mission. To pull them out now, before the Iraqis can stand by themselves, cheapens these brave servicemen's sacrifices, but also the sacrifice their families back here have borne. Not to mention the sacrifice the Iraqis have borne. Hundreds of thousands have been killed by the terrorists. Are we to abandon the rest to the slaughter that is sure to follow any ignominious exit? If so, we should be prepared for a bloodbath that will make the Killing Fields of Cambodia, and the genocide in Rwanda look like a street fight between the Sharks and the Jets in comparison. Does anyone honestly believe that the departure of U.S. forces before the democratically elected Iraqis are ready will stabilize the region? So, if no one actually believes our departure will stabilize the region then what's really being said is: We do not want to wage war against the terrorists who would kill us all. We only want to prosecute them, in U.S. federal courts, when they break American laws.

Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA's Alec Station, was the man most intimately tasked with killing and/or capturing Osama bin Laden. During a recent radio broadcast on 1210 am in Philadelphia he was asked by the host Michael Smerconish, "Which party do you think bin Laden wants to win the Senate and House. Does he care?" Without hesitation Scheuer responded, "The best possible situation would be for the democrats to win both houses." He explained further that with President Bush still in power the recruiting potential for new Islamic terrorists would continue, and the democrats in Congress would prevent the President from undertaking further military actions to combat what would be then an ever-growing threat. So, in effect Osama bin Laden needs President Bush as a bogeyman of sorts, but doesn't want him to be able to act unabated. A democrat controlled House and Senate would slow the President's efforts to combat terrorism. That is not to say that the democrats are any less patriotic, but their oft stated policy of a less forceful approach to combating terrorism is just wrong. In many ways that policy is the more American approach. We, as Americans, want to think the best of everyone. We want to believe that everyone can see the beauty of us as a people, if only we give them the chance. Unfortunately, that is a very narrow world-view, and it is potentially deadly to us as a people, and a country. At the tail end of the interview I referenced above Scheuer was quick to point out that he was not trying to tell people for whom they should vote. "Vote for whomever you want, but you have to understand how your vote hinders or helps the Islamist terrorists." That statement is what this mid-term election is about.

By now, having cited Colonel Oliver North, Michael Smerconish and Michael Scheuer some of you are, no doubt, cursing me for being a republican ideologue who truly hates liberty and peace, puppies and small children. I am certain to be accused of fear mongering and, once again, xenophobia. I am sure I will be considered nothing more than a desperate Kool-Aid drinking hack, shrilly trying anything to keep my team in power. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is not a single, solitary social issue with which Rick Santorum and I agree; at least not one I have ever heard him articulate. I truly wish there was a candidate that shared my liberal social values, my libertarian economic positions and my somewhat hawkish national security concerns. That candidate just does not exist, not now, and maybe not ever. So, what is one to do? Everyone draws their line in the sand somewhere, and for me that line comes down to the fight for U.S. survival. Whether or not we want to accept it, the Islamists are intent on ruling, at least, the entire Arab world, and have a desire to bring us to our knees. They wish for us to be unable to intercede on the world stage so they can bring back the bygone age of the Caliphate. They want to institute sharia laws in every land that was ever, or is now, inhabited by Muslims. That is not my opinion. That is the oft stated goal of Islamists everywhere, from bin Laden to Iranian President Amadinejad. The question then becomes: Do we give our best weapons, hope, democracy and freedom, a chance? Or do we once again bury our heads in the sand and hope the bad guys leave us alone? If we pull out of Iraq, as the democrats want, before the country is truly stable, we risk allowing madmen not only opportunity, but means to destroy us. Billions of dollars from oil revenue will sponsor all manner of terrorist acts, all over the world. A nuclear explosion in one, or more American cities will no longer be theory. At that point it will be too late for me to say I told you so. I'll be too busy trying to save my daughter from the ravages of a ruined world. Am I then saying vote republican or the world will blow up? No, I am saying vote for the man or woman in your district, republican, democrat or independent, who understands the threat we face. In my state that is Rick Santorum. I am voting for him Tuesday, but, should his social stances not soften with time, I will gladly help you throw him out when the work of war is good and truly done.