In less than 60 days the world will mark the sixth anniversary of 9/11. Thankfully, there are still people like Tedd Lipka who remember that awful day, the day America was attacked, the innocents victims, and the events leading up to the unthinkable becoming reality. Lipka understands that 9/ll was neither unique, nor an isolated, singular assault by a small group of madmen, but rather another strategically planned and executed attack by a well organized, focused, and determined enemy with a global network that is sworn to the destruction of America, our allies and Western Civilization, imposing in its place sharia (Islamic) rule.
By the time you read this, Lt. Tedd Lipka has deployed for his second tour of duty to Iraq. Read his poignant, patriotic good-bye elsewhere in this issue. Lipka understands why he's going, and why it matters. And, he's committed to victory in his mission.
Like a rattlesnake, this enemy lies hidden, disguised, and silent waiting to strike when their prey is least suspecting and vulnerable. And, like the rattler, they strike with only one purpose -- to kill. There is no uncertainty if the rattler will strike. The only uncertainty is when and at what target.
To avoid the poisonous attack of the rattler, the best strategy is one of pre-emption and elimination. Find him, and destroy him, before his fangs inject his deadly poison. Common-sense dictates this strategy in parks and playgrounds, on open space and along hiking trails. Any parent would use it in their back yard or neighborhood to keep them and their children safe. Any farmer or rancher would use it to protect themselves and their family.
Tedd Lipka and his comrades are using the same strategy to make America and the world a safer place, too.
A large number of people have grown weary of the war against radical Islam, and reflective of public sentiment, an apparent growing number of politicians are saying "enough". The Democrat party seems virtually unanimous in their call for a date certain withdrawal, or at least forcing a withdrawal strategy to be adopted. Every Democrat candidate for President in 2008 has embraced withdrawal. While only 4 Republican members of the House joined the Democrat majority in calling for a withdrawal to begin in 120 days, apparently more GOP members of the Senate have joined the white-flag-waiving Democrats, including Colorado's Ken Salazar, ready and willing to declare defeat.
War is tough. It's painful, deadly, and ugly. Outcomes and the course of conflict are uncertain. It is worthy, noble, and moral to do everything in our power to avoid war. Nonetheless, as America and other free peoples have discovered throughout history, when confronted by an enemy set on destruction and threatening life and freedom, righteous people can and have been called to arms.
CLARITY: What If...
Some would argue that there is never a threat so great, an assault so horrible as to warrant military action. Indeed, the argument now is focused on whether we should even be in Iraq "knowing what we now know." The supposition, of course, is that if the initial action was perhaps not absolutely necessary in March of 2003, then pulling out now should present no problems either.
There is a tragic, life threatening void in that logic, however, as it ignores the primary reason we went into Iraq - Afghanistan too, for that matter - to make America and our allies safer and more secure. It is indefensible to argue that pulling our troops out before the Iraqis have a realistic hope of providing their own security and maintaining a stable government and economy would do anything but embolden the enemy (radical Islam) to continue and escalate their attacks on the West. With virtual certainty they would attack our homeland. Thus, the original mission - and continuing one - of securing safety for our innocent citizens would be abandoned in favor of a momentary political expediency with a national election looming around the corner.
Washington Times columnist Tony Blankley blasted the weak-kneed and misguided members of the Senate with an editorial titled "The Senate: Chamber of Shame." Recounting some of the public statements of various Senators calling for pulling the plug, Blankley opined "I haven't seen such uncritical thinking since I hid under my bed sheets to get away from the monsters back when I was 3 years old." And, later he hit the nail on the head with this observation:
"Even President Bush's war critics who specialize in Middle East affairs (such as the Brookings Institute) believe that the immediate chaos in the Middle East that will follow our premature departure would likely involve not only regional war there, a new base for al Qaeda, but also a nuclear arms race that would quickly result in the world's most unstable region - which possesses the world's oil supply - armed with nuclear weapons on a hair trigger."
Exiting Iraq prematurely would explode that nation into an all out civil war, fomented by Iran and Syria with Osama bin Laden's hands on the puppet strings. Turkey would almost certainly be drawn in and all eyes of radical Islam would be on our ally, Israel. With the only superpower in the world run out of the Middle East with our tail between our legs, zero credibility in the international community, and a dispirited, broken willed American citizenry, radical Islam would quickly conclude that they would be free to pursue their stated desire for a caliphate over most -- or all -- of the world. The sands of the Middle East would likely be drenched in blood, and it would be impossible for us -- however vehemently we want to argue that we should never have been there in the first place -- to claim that it is not on our hands.
Fragile Pakistan would be drawn in, and Afghanistan would likely fall -- again. India, the world's largest democracy and our strong ally, would be threatened as would Indonesia. Northern Africa, where we have seen far too much war, death, poverty and disease, would think the last decade was only the precursor for the horrors ahead.
And, on our homeland... who knows? By the grace of God and the very hard work of our intelligence and law enforcement communities we have avoided an attack since 9/11, but much of the world has not been as fortunate. The interventions at Fort Dix and JFK airport recently, along with the failed attacks in London and Glasgow, should be indication enough that radical Islam is not limited to Iraq and the Middle East.
Our enemies would believe that America's will to fight and defend herself had been broken. There would be no 900 lb. gorilla to protect the globe's little guys -- or maybe even herself. Any thought of an American superpower might be only reserved for a place in history. As difficult as it is today to rally any kind of international coalition, after a cut-and-run and the virtual certainty of the disaster that would follow, America's credibility -- whatever we have left -- would evaporate.
Radical Islam would have succeeding in defeating America and running us out of Iraq just as the Taliban succeeded in defeating the former Soviet Union in Afghanistan (with help from the CIA), and both would have been accomplished without a nuclear weapon. However, following the embarrassment and defeat of America in Iraq, Tehran would proceed unimpeded to finalize development or acquisition of a nuclear weapon, leveraging the unthinkable to hold a hammer over the head of whatever is left of the international coalition defending freedom.
Once again, the observation of Tony Blankley: "We will then pay in blood, treasure and future wars vastly more than we are paying today to manage and eventually win our struggle in Iraq."
COURAGE: Politics vs. Security
Increasingly our politicians seem to be jumping on the "defeated" bandwagon. All of this despite reports from military experts and other credible sources suggesting patience at a minimum. When asked about the effect of an early pullout at a Defense Department news conference on July 6, 2007, Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch predicted, "You'd find the enemy regaining ground, re-establishing sanctuary, building more" roadside bombs. "The violence would escalate. It'd be a mess."
GOP Senators like Domenici, Lugar, Voinovich, Warner, and Snowe are ready to declare defeat -- they of course call it "a new course of action" -- despite the warnings of their colleague Joe Lieberman, arguably the most knowledgeable member of the Senate when it comes to the Middle East and radical Islam. The Independent-Democrat from Connecticut was alarmed by the recent military disclosure that "the Iranian government has been using the Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah to train and organize Iraqi extremists, who are responsible in turn for the murder of American service members." Lieberman said "The Iranian government, by its actions, has all but declared war on us and our allies in the Middle East... I hope the new revelations about Iran's behavior will also temper the enthusiasm of some of those in Congress who are advocating the immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq."
Then in a Churchillian moment, Lieberman went on to charge, "Iran's purpose in sponsoring attacks on American soldiers, after all, is clear: It hopes to push the U.S. out of Iraq and Afghanistan, so that its proxies can then dominate these states. Tehran knows that an American retreat under fire would send an unmistakable message throughout the region that Iran is on the rise and America is on the run. That would be a disaster for the region and the U.S."
All Senators received the same startling information Lieberman referred to, and it received wide media distribution, too. Yet many still rushed to microphones to hold their press conferences declaring defeat at virtually the same time.
The logic of premature and announced withdrawal not only plays into the hands of the enemy, it flies squarely in the face of facts.
General Petraeus was approved by the Senate but a few months ago -- 81-0, by the way -- as the new Commander in Iraq with express purpose to execute the "surge." The full complement of the 30,000 additional troops have only very recently arrived in Iraq, thus the plan is only now fully operational. And, while there is a long and uncertain path ahead, evidence of progress and optimism does exist. Washington Post syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer says, "To cut off Petraeus's plan just as it is beginning -- the last surge troops arrived only last month -- on the assumption that we cannot succeed is to declare Petraeus either deluded or dishonorable." Going on to explain that Petraeus is afflicted with neither of these maladies, Krauthammer returned to the defecting Senators saying, but "that's the logic of the wobbly Republicans' position."
There is factual and anecdotal evidence on the grounds that the newly initiated Surge might be worth giving a little more time to work. For example, in Anbar province as noted by Senator Lieberman after his visit to Iraq in early June of this year:
"Consider Anbar province, Iraq's heart of darkness for most of the past four years. When I last visited Anbar in December, the U.S. military would not allow me to visit the provincial capital, Ramadi, because it was too dangerous. Anbar was one of al Qaeda's major strongholds in Iraq and the region where the majority of American casualties were occurring. A few months earlier, the Marine Corps chief of intelligence in Iraq had written off the entire province as 'lost,' while the Iraq Study Group described the situation there as 'deteriorating.'
When I returned to Anbar on this trip, however, the security environment had undergone a dramatic reversal. Attacks on U.S. troops there have dropped from an average of 30 to 35 a day a few months ago to less than one a day now, according to Col. John Charlton, commander of the 1st Brigade of the 3rd Infantry Division, headquartered in Ramadi. Whereas six months ago only half of Ramadi's 23 tribes were cooperating with the coalition, all have now been persuaded to join an anti-al Qaeda alliance. One of Ramadi's leading sheikhs told me: 'A rifle pointed at an American soldier is a rifle pointed at an Iraqi.'"
Perhaps not all of Sen. Lieberman's Senate colleagues care to accept his evaluation. If so, maybe the observations and opinions of John Burns of the typically anti-Bush, harshly critical New York Times would do. During a recent interview on PBS's "NewsHour" in which he labeled the turn around in Anbar an "astonishing success" Burns said, "These Anbar [province] sheikhs who are cooperating with the United States have made an enormous difference in what was the most dangerous province in Iraq... I was out there today at the capital, Ramadi... and it's gone from being the most dangerous place in Iraq... to being one of the least dangerous places."
Co-author of IraqtheModel.com written from Baghdad, Omar Fadhil proclaimed in a guest editorial in the July 13 Wall Street Journal that "the surge is working." Noting the success in Anbar province, particularly in Ramadi against Moqtada al-Sadr's gangs, and similarly against al-Qaeda forces that dominated Baghdad, Fadhil said,
"It would be unrealistic to expect political progress to take place along the same timeline as this military progress. The obvious reason is that Iraqi politics tend to be affected by developments on the battlefield. Anyone familiar with the basics of negotiations should understand this.
"First things first. Let's allow our troops to finish their job. And when that is done nation-building will follow, and that's where diplomats and politicians will have to do the fighting in their own way while American soldiers can finally enjoy a well-deserved rest.
"Backing off now is not an option. The light at the end of the tunnel faded for a whole dark year, but we can see it again now and it's getting brighter. It's our duty to keep walking towards it."
In the most extensive review of the pitfalls and mistakes made since the beginning of the war in Iraq four years ago, Frederick and Kimberly Kagan analyze what went wrong to date and why in the July 9 issue of The Weekly Standard. They also document elements of progress with the new surge strategy and feel that "there is every reason to believe at this stage that the current operation and its likely successor will dramatically reduce the level of violence in Baghdad, and do so in a way that will prove sustainable. That accomplishment in itself will be a major contribution to American security." There it is -- finally. Back to the original mission of "contributing to American security."
So, if so many others understand, why not the politicians? The Wall Street Journal thinks they know: "GOP Senators looking ahead to the 2008 elections have decided that the real front in the war lies not in Baghdad or Baquba but in the Beltway, and that a "bipartisan" redeployment is a worthier goal than backing the current battle plan." Explaining his defection to the "Defeated Caucus", Indiana Senator Dick Lugar said, "I do not doubt the assessments of military commanders that there has been some progress in security." But, Lugar felt the prospects for the surge to prove successful were "very limited." Not because of any failings of the strategy or of our fighting men and women, but because the "short period framed by our own domestic political debate" won't allow it."
In other words, success will escape us because Lugar and his Capitol Hill buddies plan to pull the "Victory Rug" right out from under our troops.
As acknowledged at the top, Marine Lt. Tedd Lipka has a different perspective that Lugar and a number of his Senate and House colleagues. So, too does Colorado Springs resident, Debra Bascom. She's the mother of Marine sergeant Doug Bascom killed in Iraq. The Rocky Mountain News published these thoughts from the grieving mother of an American hero:
"If we don't stay the course, what was the point of going over there in the first place?"
"If our objective was to fight terrorism, then obviously we are not done because we still have tons of terrorism over there,"
"Who's going to respect us if we go in and then pull out because somebody doesn't like it?"
"We're not expendable. And with the way Congress is doing things, it seems like we are expendable."
"I sent in a 25-year-old son with great potential and a great heart to believe what he was told needed to be done."
"But he stuck it out. He didn't leave. He didn't let his buddies down. (Congress is) letting him down by not following through on what needs to be done."
CONVICTION: A Moral Responsibility
War fatigue is a very real, understandable emotion. President Bush has acknowledged it, and undoubtedly public opinion polls are correct that a majority of Americans feel it. If anyone is tired of it one would surely believe it to be the troops and their families who carry the greatest of the burden. Yet, it is they who have the greatest resolve.
Those who see it different bear an obligation to explain their alternative plan, and specifically how premature withdrawal would address the initial and current priority of protecting America's safety. On July 12, 2007, ABC News reporter Jake Tapper attempted to get some answers from the Democrat Majority Leader Harry Reid who announced already on April 19 that "...this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything..."
Tapper asked, "Is there not a moral obligation of the United States to make sure that the Iraqi people are safe before the U.S. withdraws?" Bobbing and weaving, Reid citing polls showing Iraqis don't like American occupation. He cited the cost of the war in lives and in dollars. But, he didn't answer the question, just a final "That's enough," from the Leader of the Senate. "With all due respect, Senator, you didn't answer my question," ABC's Tapper injected. "OK. This is not a debate," Reid said as he departed. No answer.
That public exchange prompted the Washington Times to editorialize that "Those now calling for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq have moral responsibilities. They must demonstrate that withdrawal makes the United States safer. They have not. They must show that a slaughter of epic proportions will not follow. They have not. They must show that an al Qaeda satellite and Iranian satellite will not result. Again, they have not."
War fatigue and hatred of anything with George W. Bush's finger prints on it has clouded the judgment of too many politicians, and frankly too many Americans. Embarrassing the President and throwing in the towel, however will not necessarily prove to be good long term strategy for the United States or the rest of the world.
One of the potential tragic outcomes of the political divide and game of "gotcha" that is playing out on Capitol Hill is that little constructive work is getting done. Reid and Pelosi are forever trying to diminish the power of the President and render him ineffective, if he hasn't accomplished a good bit of that by his own doing. Meanwhile, there is a war going on, troops in the field, and a threatening enemy that must be dealt with.
David Ignatius of the Washington Post and Newsweek wrote of this political meltdown recently in the wake of the thwarted terrorist plots in London and Glasgow. He asked the obvious question, "How would America react to a future terrorist attack?" That's theoretical, obviously, but his real point was to raise a legitimate concern that should -- or when -- the next unthinkable attack happens, conservatives will likely blame liberals from taking their eye off the ball and not staying in the fight. Liberals will no doubt find fault with the Bush Administration for angering the terrorist and "making America more vulnerable."
While perhaps interesting political debate in the theoretical, Ignatius correctly sees this likely outcome as symptomatic of the illness that has infected America's body politic. We have failed to stay focused as a nation, and certainly in Washington, on the lessons of 9/11 and as a result fallen short of taking necessary steps to prevent potential biological or nuclear (dirty bomb) terrorist attacks.
"In a politically healthy nation, the news from Britain would have a galvanizing effect," Ignatius wrote. "Politicians and the public would pull together and take appropriate steps to prepare for future terrorist attacks on America. There was a moment of shared purpose after Sept. 11, 2001. It's frightening how totally that mood of national unity has dissipated. I can think of lots of people to blame for the current polarization, but that's not the point. The point is to get serious, and to get ready."
Senators and Congressmen more worried about their re-election public opinion polls will of course lay claim to being very "serious." But, are they?
The charge is very clear -- American safety and security. And, the threat is very real. The defense of life and liberty most certainly justifies the righteousness of the cause. It is a time in history that calls for courage, moral clarity, great conviction, and for action.
It may be useful to recall the words of a former Congressman, and would-be President as he spoke at Cooper Union in New York on February 27, 1860:
"Let us have faith that Right makes Might, and in that faith, let us, to the end dare to do our duty as we understand it."
- Abraham Lincoln