A growing number of Democrats have falsely accused Sen. John McCain of "promising" 100 years of war in Iraq.
It's an intentional distortion, since it's long since been clarified and elaborated upon.
In fact, McCain's point was that the presence of American forces promotes stability. That's been the case in Europe and Asia where Americans have been stationed for more than half a century. It's been true in the Balkans since the 1990s when President Clinton sent troops there. America's military plays a beneficial role when it eliminates America's enemies; it does so also when it stays on to prevent those enemies from reemerging.| A hundred years from now Americans might still be fighting militant Islamists in Iraq and other places. What could be worse than that? A hundred years from now America and the West could have been defeated by militant Islamists. |
But there is a hard truth that McCain did not state: A hundred years from now Americans might still be fighting militant Islamists in Iraq and other places. What could be worse than that? A hundred years from now America and the West could have been defeated by militant Islamists.
Is there an echo in here?
Al-Qaeda, Iran's ruling mullahs, Hezbollah and others militant jihadis have told us what they are fighting for. The well-known Islamist, Hassan al-Banna, described the movement's goals succinctly: "to dominate ... to impose its laws on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet." He said that in 1928.
Al-Banna was the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Who would have believed then that his heirs would acquire the wealth, power and lethality they enjoy today?
All based on oil money that flows out of our pockets in an uninterrupted stream.
Who can say where they may be a hundred years from now? Who can say where the West will be? Survival is not an entitlement. It must be earned by every generation.
The way to bring global jihad, to a screeching halt, to send the would-be lords and masters of the world back to sitting in their tents and beating their women, would be to cease buying oil -- any at all. Since we've been screwing around with "alternative energy sources" since the early 70s -- let's say the last 30 years -- the record sez that's not gonna happen, despite the amount of wind expended, wind that doesn't pass through turbines in the hilles. It's not that it can't be done, but that we won't do it.
| The other way to bring global jihad to a screeching halt is to separate the would-be lord and masters of the world from their wealth. It's an accident of geography that these jokers sit on oceans of oil, an accident that could be remedied if push really came to shove. The record to date sez that's not gonna happen either, despite the political wind blowing. Like with alternative energy, it's not that it can't be done, but that we won't do it. |
So the most important question not asked of General David Petreaus when he testified before Congress this week is how to maximize our chances of winning the long, global war in which we are engaged. Retreating from key battlefields would not appear to be the most promising strategy. Yet opponents of the Iraq war continue to argue for a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. They were unmoved by the most pungent point Petraeus made regarding progress in Iraq. "We are fighting al-Qaeda every day," he said. "We have our teeth in their jugular and we need to keep it there."
The Dems are very much the party of Vietnam. There we suffered 50,000 dead. They're determined to discount the brilliance of a military operation lasting five years that's had 4000 dead. That casualty figures are the measure of our success, regardless of the individual tragedies.
Senator Carl Levin, in remarks just prior to the questioning of Petraeus, had next to nothing to say about al-Qaeda or the Iranian-backed militias Americans and Iraqis also have been battling. Instead, he insisted that Iraq remains mired in a civil war, a talking point long past its sell-by date.
Levin is no different from the Dems in general. Without facts to support them they've got to intentionally misinterpret. The civil war was a Sunni-Shia affair, consciously set up by Zarqawi. Abu Ayub al-Masri hasn't been able to keep it up, and AQI has been ground down to a shadow of its old self -- 15 percent of the size it used to be, according to a recent article.
Other opponents of the Petraeus mission contended that pulling out of Iraq would free up American forces for Afghanistan. But Iraq is the heart of the Arab and Muslim world. Afghanistan, by contrast, is a strategic backwater. What's more, in Afghanistan we are mostly fighting al-Qaeda's junior partner, the Taliban. Meanwhile, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri have been reconstituting al-Qaeda HQ across the border in the wilder reaches of Pakistan. No one arguing against the Petraeus mission has provided even the vaguest outline of an improved strategy to confront al-Qaeda forces there.
Those hollering for more attention for Afghanistan have a certain amount of sense on their side, but they're ignoring priorities. The heart of the Arab world gives us borders with Syria, Soddy Arabia, and Iran, all problem children. Afghanistan gives us proximity to Qaeda HQ in Chitral. The Talibs are an irritant. In the end they'll make a peace with their Pashtun brothers in the Afghan government and Pashtunistan will be back to memorizing the Koran and beating their women. I'd have put a lot more emphasis on zapping Hekmatyar and Mullah Omar, regardless of which side of the border they're on. When the Qaeda leadership is taken out it will be as a result of intel giving us good enough data for targeting, not as the result of ground operations. On the other hand, if I was the political leadership, I'd be developing the hell out of northern Afghanistan, turning it into something to shame Pashtunistan. Start with the Pandjir Valley and work out. And make any wandering Pashtuns feel unwelcome outside their own areas.
For nations as well as for individuals, both winning and losing can be habit-forming. How many people have you heard say that America lost in Vietnam -- and so what? In 1979, the Iranian mullahs seized our embassy and took our diplomats hostage and we made them pay no price -- and so what? In 1983, Hezbollah, Iran's Lebanese proxy, bombed the U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon and we did nothing much -- and so what? Ten years later, we retreated from Somalia -- and so what? The World Trade Towers were bombed for the first time that same year and we held no regimes or movements responsible -- and so what?
| America was seen as a toothless tiger --"a society that cannot accept 10,000 dead in one battle," in the words of Saddam Hussein. |
But you know what? America was seen as a toothless tiger --"a society that cannot accept 10,000 dead in one battle," in the words of Saddam Hussein. He instructed "all militant believers" to "target (American) interests wherever they may be." Bin Laden declared the United States "a weak horse." In 2006, al-Zawahiri predicted that the U.S. would go down to defeat in Iraq. It is, he said, "only a matter of time." Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah's leader, added: "I advise all those who place their trust in the Americans to learn the lesson of Vietnam ...and to know that when the Americans lose this war --and lose it they will, Allah willing -- they will abandon them to their fate, just like they did to all those who placed their trust in them throughout history."
Let's suppose it will require a hundred years to defeat such people, the ideas they espouse and the movements they represent. Do we really have anything more important to do?
(Clifford D. May is president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism. E-mail him at cliff(at)defenddemocracy.org) |
[An Nahar] A Storied Baghdad
BAGHDAD / Aswat al-Iraq: Iraqi security forces captured the mufti of the so-called 
Al-Qaeda's second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, has praised two of the group's leaders killed in a shootout last month and offered condolences for their deaths, in an audio tape aired Friday by al-Jazeera TV and monitored by the US-based SITE Intelligence Group.
A militant killed during an operation in Mosul Saturday has been positively identified as a senior al-Qaeda militant known as Abu Doha, the US military said Sunday. Meanwhile violence occurring Sunday and Saturday elsewhere in Iraq killed a total of 17 people and wounded dozens more. "Along with kidnapping, Abu Doha and his associates were reportedly involved in weapons facilitation and coordinating attacks against Iraqi security and (US-led) coalition forces," a statement from the military said. "Abu Doha is also known to have numerous terrorist associates, including a key leader with ties to Syrian-based terrorists and the inner circle of al-Qaeda in Iraq's senior leadership," it added. The US military alleged that Abu Doha reportedly received his orders directly from 
The U.S. command said Wednesday the highest-ranking Iraqi in the leadership of al-Qaida in Iraq has been arrested, adding that information from him indicates the group's foreign-based leadership wields considerable influence over the Iraqi chapter. 
The US military says it has killed the "right-hand man" of slain Al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Major General William Caldwell says Iraqi