The Discerning Texan
-- Edmund Burke
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Is Iraq the KEY to winning "the Battle" against Al Qaeda--and winning "the War" against Islamists?
The chance to kill Americans while possibly tipping the scales against a democracy taking root in the capital of the ancient caliphate--Iraq--proved to be irresistible to thousands of AQ jihadists from all over the Middle East and Central Asia. Iran--no friend of the Sunni in a broader sense--nevertheless was happy to provide funding for Al Qaeda's activities (this has been proven by subsequent Intelligence). Iran also provide advanced weaponry and training to Al Qaeda. It is easy to see why: the worst nightmare of the mullahs is a thriving, successful Shiite-dominated democracy on its doorstep--this would be constant reminder to Iranian dissidents within (whose numbers are legion...) that there is a far preferable alternative to the repressive mullahcracy. And if Iran's funding of Al Qaeda and the Mahdi Army brigades is successful in prompting weak-kneed Democrat Appeasers to pull our forces out of Iraq, at that point Iran would be in a position to send its elite Qods forces into Southern Iraq and secure 1/3 of the worlds oil supply for the world's #1 state sponsor of terror. And while Americans would never undertake wholesale genocidal slaughter as a tactic to put down an insurrection, the Iranians have shown time and time again that they would have no qualms whatsoever in killing indiscriminately to achieve its aims. If the US pulls out, the slaughter would be nothing short of horrific.
In a timely column, Steve Huntley finds that the Democrats' stated reasons for leaving Iraq not only do not have merit; indeed such a course of action could seriously backfire in other ways:
The Iraq war critics seized upon a new intelligence report that al-Qaida has been rejuvenated by the Iraq war as proof that the invasion of Iraq was a distraction from the war on terror. OK, that should be good for a few minutes of bashing President Bush, but it doesn't change the reality that al-Qaida is in Iraq and is our enemy.There is another glaring flaw in the Democrats' stated plan--which would withdraw troops to safer areas, supposedly to be used only against "Al Qaeda". First of all, if an IED explodes or a firefight begins, how are US forces supposed to call "time out" to check to see if the forces are Al Qaeda--do the Democrat appeasers actually believe that AQ members all carry membership cards? Secondly, Al Qaeda is a loosely affiliated network of terrorists who go by many names--or no names. These "franchises" do have a common goal--Jihad, Sharia Law--but that goal is almost indistinguishable from any other fundamentalist Islamist on Planet Earth.Here's another thought: What would be the reaction of the quit-Iraq advocates should al-Qaida in Iraq's fingerprints be found in a terrorist attack in America?
This is not an idle question. After all, the National Intelligence Estimate released last week also said Osama bin Laden's organization will "probably seek to leverage the contacts and capabilities of al-Qaida in Iraq, its most visible and capable affiliate and the only one known to have expressed a desire to attack the Homeland." Furthermore, the 9/11 Commission has said another attack on America by Islamist terrorists is inevitable, and a new threat assessment a week ago from the National Counterterrorism Center suggested al-Qaida is working to renew attacks on America. Now we're told al-Qaida in Iraq could be the agent for it.
No doubt, even as the bodies were being recovered, the wounded treated and survivors consoled, the implacable Bush haters would blame his policies for an attack by al-Qaida in Iraq. But what would be the view of the majority of Americans who have been telling pollsters that it's time for America to withdraw the troops from Iraq?
It seems reasonable to conclude in the aftermath of another mega-attack that Americans would come to agree with bin Laden and al-Qaida that the central front in the war between America and Islamist terrorism is in Iraq, despite the serious challenges in Afghanistan and Pakistan. If so, they might decide that defeating al-Qaida requires more troops, not fewer, and not just in Iraq but Afghanistan as well. And support for the much-maligned Patriot Act would grow.
Many Islamist fundamentalist terrorist groups are not members of Al Qaeda or associated with its command structure. This includes the Iranian Qods forces we've already found in Iraq trying to kill Americans, and it also includes Iranian-backed Hezbollah in Syria and Lebanon, and Hamas in Palestine. All of these groups live and die for world jihad; all of these groups would dearly love to kill as many American infidels as possible; they hide behind elementary schools when they launch missiles into Israel; they massacre elementary students in Russia; they murder filmmakers in Holland; they blow up buses and cars in London and Glasgow; they blow up trains full of Hindus in India. They kidnap British sailors and American citizens in Tehran. They used a car bomb in Beirut when they killed hundreds of US Marines in Lebanon. None of these necessarily Al Qaeda--in fact many were not.
Yet the "Al Qaeda Football Club" happens to be the only franchise in a league of Islamist sociopathic enemies that the Democrats want to allow Americans to shoot at... It is sort of like pretending you could have won World War II if you had only fought the Italians. Of course--as stupid as it sounds--that is precisely the course todays Democrats would have prescribed were they in place instead of FDR. Hell the Germans would probably have a statue of Reid and Pelosi as heroes of the Thousand Year Reich. If the current set of Democrats had been in office during World War II, we would be speaking a hybrid of German and Japanese right now. Of that I have no doubt.
So here is a likely scenario for the talking heads who ask the lame softball questions to the Democrat candidates who are being considered for the job of most powerful military commander on Earth: you are a Marine in a convoy just trying to get from Baghdad Airport to his post-Democrat Surrender "safe" area, and suddenly your convoy comes under fire by masked jihadists carrying grenade launchers. So at what point in the exchange of fire with these terrorists do we call "cease fire" just because we think the jihadists trying to blow us up might be from religious zealot hate-groups other than Al Qaeda? Do we just roll out the white flag and hand these monsters a daisy?
The real travesty is that we are asked to take seriously people whose solutions are not only not serious; they are contrived with purely political gain in mind, with nothing else considered. Not the strategic interests of the United States. Not the safety of its people (the myth that Democrats gave a damn about our safety went out the window with the John Doe Amendment...). Not the extent to which their "solutions" would empower our darkest most powerful enemies.
Scott Johnson has some things to say about the Democrats' latest betrayal:
These Democrats; these reprehensible and hypocritical men and women are betraying the institutions they represent, they are betraying their country, they are wanting to send us careening towards nanny-state bankruptcy, and they are endangering our lives--yours and mine--by appeasing our enemies. And they are doing these things out of their own quest for more power for themselves and more power over our lives--and only for that reason. It is all about power, no matter what. No matter how many of us die as a result. No matter how many millions die in an Iraqi Genocide should we leave. No matter how strong the Islamists get or if Iran is giving them nukes to kill us with. At least they will be in office when we start dying. This is the only thing on their radar screen. Is that right? Do they deserve to be rewarded for this? Are we going to sit by and allow them to be re-elected again by a clueless electorate. Friends, this is it. This is our Delaware River. This is our Battle of Britain. This is our Tokyo Bay--or else it is our Hiroshima. What happens now is up to us."Democrats are trying to find any technical excuse to keep immunity out of the language of the bill to protect citizens, who in good faith, report suspicious activity to police," said Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y. "I don't see how you can have a homeland security bill without protecting people who come forward to report suspicious activity."The editorial stops short of asking why the Democrats are blocking the John Doe legislation. Recall that the legislation arises in the context of the case of the flying imams. Recall also that the case of the flying imams is a production brought to us by CAIR, the Islamist front group that holds itself out as a civil rights organization. The attorney representing the flying imams in their lawsuit in Minnesota federal district court is an officer of CAIR's New York chapter.Neither do we, and certainly the actions of the six imams last November qualified as suspicious. While at the gate, according to police reports and witnesses, the six made anti-American comments and provocatively chanted "Allah, Allah, Allah." On the plane, they asked for seat-belt extenders with heavy metal buckles, even though none was obviously in need of them, and then dropped them at their feet.
Last time we checked, there was no tenet of Islam that required them to leave their assigned seats shortly before takeoff, a violation of federal rules, and occupy the exit and entry rows of a jet aircraft, a pattern associated with the 9/11 attacks. All six moved — two to front-row first class, two in the middle on an exit row and two in the rear of the cabin.
Was it racism to report these actions? Stereotyping? Heather MacDonald of the Manhattan Institute notes: "A stereotype in this instance is nothing more than a compilation of facts about who has attacked American interests in the past and who, given what we know, is most likely to do so in the future."
The Democrats' opposition to the John Doe legislation is consistent with the alliance between radical Islam and the American left. It is an alliance that one can see embodied in the person of Minnesota Fifth District Rep. Keith Ellison, America's first Muslim congressman. Ellison had spoken at the conference of the flying imams in suburban Minneapolis over the weekend before the incident giving rise to the case. If the case of the flying imams ever gets off the ground, one incidental benefit would be the illumination that the discovery process might shed on the imams' weekend deliberations.
The battle in Iraq is being fought--and won or lost--right here at home. If you are reading this, you can also go to a site and give money--until it hurts--to Republicans for winning this War. What if your money was the difference between defeat and victory--next year AND in Iraq? If you knew that was so, how would it change your behavior? We need to think about it like this, because it is so urgent and so consequential.
Let's get started. Time is short...
Labels: 2008 Congressional Races, 2008 Presidential Race, Al Qaeda, Democrat Sabotage, Hearts and Minds, Iran, Iraq, Islamic Fascism
