War on Terror

2 Comments Posted on Editorials

this is not a test

there are some people in this country who still do not seem to understand that the war on terrorism is not just about iraq. the war on terrorism will not be over at the end of the bush 43 presidency. it will not be concluded when the last of the US troops leave iraq and afghanistan. terrorism has always existed in the world. it’s something that is more easily ignored when it doesn’t happen to people we know, or when it happens in some place we have never been. 9/11 was a tragic wake-up call that a terrorist attack could happen in the united states of america, and it brought an up close and personal introduction to a new kind of enemy — one that doesn’t follow the generally accepted rules of engagement. that’s the kind of enemy the nation of israel is facing right now.

israel has been dealing with terrorists for quite a long time, and unfortunately for them, there’s no end in sight to that struggle. the new attacks against israel are proof of that. when you have a political party whose sole purpose for existence is killing jews, like hezbollah, how is negotiation even possible? when your opposition consists of ideologues with beliefs like that, how can they be appeased? more importantly, why must they be appeased? why should israel give them what they want?

i’m not a foreign policy expert, so i can’t suggest the next move for any of the parties involved in this conflict. all i can understand is what we have learned from history. we don’t defeat terrorists by giving them what they want. we don’t defeat terrorists by giving in to fear. we defeat terrorists by killing them, and by cutting off their financing and means of communicating with each other. i don’t believe that any of us will ever see the end of the war on terrorism. we still need to do what we can to keep our country safe. i believe this.

israel understands the threat they face with terrorists, and they usually do a capable job handling that threat. what about this country? are we willing to take the necessary steps to ensure the security of the united states of america and to protect this country from foreign and domestic threats to that security? that’s the committment president bush made to us when he was sworn into office and that’s the promise he made to us after 9/11.

read the senate resolution on israel , pdf here (h/t- truthlaidbear). i don’t think i could have added anything to what they said. terrorism is not a bogus threat. it’s a real threat. the response to it needs to be a serious one, and not a collection of soundbites designed for political point scoring. decide for yourself who you think is guilty of this.

tags: , ,

2 Comments Posted on Iraq

there’s an interesting idea

interesting perspective by ralph peters on our treatment of terrorists. the overall idea is that we should kill them in battle instead of capturing them. it makes a lot of sense. excerpt here.

Violent Islamist extremists must be killed on the battlefield. Only in the rarest cases should they be taken prisoner. Few have serious intelligence value. And, once captured, there’s no way to dispose of them.Killing terrorists during a conflict isn’t barbaric or immoral – or even illegal. We’ve imposed rules upon ourselves that have no historical or judicial precedent. We haven’t been stymied by others, but by ourselves.

The oft-cited, seldom-read Geneva and Hague Conventions define legal combatants as those who visibly identify themselves by wearing uniforms or distinguishing insignia (the latter provision covers honorable partisans – but no badges or armbands, no protection). Those who wear civilian clothes to ambush soldiers or collect intelligence are assassins and spies – beyond the pale of law.

i’ve never understood the inclination to give terrorists the same rights as prisoners of war. the rules of engagement have changed. we can’t apply the same rules in this case. not only that, but as peters points out, the enemy we face does not fit the description of prisoners of war laid out in the geneva conventions. i’m not an expert in international law, but i do think that modification of this and similar treaties is necessary to deal with the current threat we are facing with terrorists and those affliated with terrorists.

i’m not suggesting that there should be no guidelines for terrorist treatment. there should be a clear idea of what is acceptable and what is not in interrogation of enemy combatants, terrorists, or legitimate prisoners of war. we just can’t get into this politically correct mentality where we don’t take the threat to our country and to other countries seriously. we are getting to the point where we are looking to international law to determine what the united states is allowed to do.

this bothers me. the increasing dependence on international law to determine the actions of the united states, a sovereign nation, is a disturbing trend. the responsibility of the united states government should first be to its citizens, and its primary duty is to ensure america’s safety and security. if the UN or the EU or any foreign body makes treaties or laws that threaten to take away our ability to defend our country from our enemies, the united states shouldn’t be obligated to sign on to any such treaties. i’m not sure what is so hard to accept about such a proposition.

we can set guidelines for interrogation, but we also must keep in mind the nature of the enemy the world faces today. we may need to modify existing treaties and our current laws to effectively deal with the terrorist threat. we just can’t allow those who are confirmed to be terrorists back into iraq and afghanistan to cause more chaos. it’s hard enough for us to win in those two countries as the situation stands right now.

Technorati Tags: , ,

10 Comments Posted on Democrats, Iraq, Republicans

suggestions for republicans

iraq is not a black-and-white issue. that’s something i think both republicans and democrats should keep in mind in all of their election prep work, whether it’s for the november election this year or the presidential election in ’08. i’ll get to my suggestions for republicans in just a minute, but i want to address this first, because i think that the democrats may be misreading the mood of the american people on iraq.

there is a very comprehensive pew research poll here that has mixed results for the bush administration on the views of the american people on the iraq war. while the american people may disagree with bush’s handling of the war, a small majority of them generally believe that we should stay until iraq is stabilized. i realize that public opinion is split on whether we are winning in iraq or not, but i’m fairly certain that most of us would agree that we should win. that’s why even though bush’s iraq strategy isn’t terribly popular, the democrats’ calls for withdrawal from iraq are even less popular. the american people see those calls for withdrawal as some kind of admission of failure in iraq, and that’s something that most of us don’t want to accept.

i don’t believe that withdrawing troops at this point in the war is the best strategy. others may disagree. that’s fine. let’s have the debate, but let’s have an honest one.

keeping this in mind…i offer the following suggestions to my fellow republicans for november ’06:

  • don’t run from iraq. if you voted for the war, admit it. don’t waffle. point out some of the good things happening there, ie. elections, death of zarqawi, completion of new iraqi government. the thing to remember is that whether we agreed or disagreed with the war, the future of iraq is what we have to be concerned about now. we need to finish what we started there.
  • acknowledge mistakes but don’t dwell on them. the voters may forgive you for those mistakes or they may not. it will depend on (if you’re an incumbent) your overall record.
  • if you are in the senate and you voted against the senate immigration bill proposing amnesty to illegal immigrants, make sure to point this out. illegal immigration has become a huge issue, especially in border states. those who are concerned about this issue want to know that their representatives are taking this seriously and that they will put a higher priority on border security than on temporary worker programs.
  • any support of the house immigration bill should be emphasized as well. border security, not rewarding those who break the law, etc, are phrases that will resonate with people. if we really value the american worker, we should always give them the first opportunity to get any available job here in this country. we must hold employers accountable to only hire workers who are legally able to work in this country, and punish the ones who disobey the law.
  • know your audience. find out the important issues to the voters that you will be representing. be able to articulate why you believe what you believe, whether you have a sympathetic audience or not. focus on areas where you can agree with the view of that audience.
  • values, values, values. this is the main difference between republicans and democrats right now…not that democrats are all heathen hell-bound folks, because they are not. it’s fair to say, however, that on issues of concern to social conservatives and christians, they can find more common ground with us than with the democrats. i don’t think i have to spell out what those common values are.
  • always be positive about america, the state you want to represent, and the future of both. sell yourself as the best choice, not as the alternative to a bad choice. constant negativity is a turn-off to voters. we want to be positive and optimistic about where our country is going. give us that opportunity.

that’s my advice. if karl rove gives you different advice, then please listen to him instead. 🙂

3 Comments Posted on Uncategorized

about that religion of peace

religions of peace don’t behead people. people of peace do not make signs promoting violence. the late ayatollah khomeini’s words would have spun all this conventional wisdom to the contrary on its head. if its proponents tell the truth about the kind of islam they are promoting, what else is left to say? (h/t to lgf). here’s what the ayatollah had to say:

IslamÂ’s jihad is a struggle against idolatry, sexual deviation, plunder, repression, and cruelty. The war waged by [non-Islamic] conquerors, however, aims at promoting lust and animal pleasures. They care not if whole countries are wiped out and many families left homeless. But those who study jihad will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world. All the countries conquered by Islam or to be conquered in the future will be marked for everlasting salvation. For they shall live under [GodÂ’s law]. …

Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does that mean that Muslim should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill the [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us? Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean that we should surrender [to the enemy]? Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to paradise, which can be opened only for holy warriors!

There are hundreds of other [Koranic] psalms and hadiths [sayings of the prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.

that settles the question for me. it’s interesting that he says the struggle is against repression and cruelty, when those are two characteristics of hard-core islamic states. even some of the real-life events depicted in the fictional story the kite runner are glaring examples of how extremists don’t really practice what they preach. they don’t seem to be very concerned that the struggle between repression and cruelty had been lost. looking in from the outside world, it’s hard to understand why anyone would desire to have an islamic state, at least from a citizen’s POV.

if you need more evidence of the twisted intent of this kind of islam, how about this fatwa against jews and against the united states, originally issued in 1998:

World Islamic Front Statement Urging Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders
(excerpt dated February 23, 1998)

…On that basis, and in compliance with Allah’s order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims:

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies — civilians and military — is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, “and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together,” and “fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah.”

This is in addition to the words of Almighty Allah:”And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)? — women and children, whose cry is: ‘Our Lord, rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will help!'”

We — with Allah’s help — call on every Muslim who believes in Allah and wishes to be rewarded to comply with Allah’s order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan’s U.S. troops and the devil’s supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson.

should it really be necessary to attach caveats to every criticism of islam that this extremism does not represent every single muslim? i think all reasonable people would agree that it does not. however, it would be impossible to address the war on terror without dealing with the religious aspect of that war. what we are seeing today is a result of the implementation of radical islam, and we need to be honest about this: islam, as it is practiced by extremists, is NOT a religion of peace.

other interesting reading:

Al Qaeda: Profile and Threat Assessment (pdf)
Thomas F. Madden on Crusades on National Review Online

Technorati Tags: , ,

2 Comments Posted on George W. Bush, Iraq, Tony Blair

unbelievable

Every day we hear of the death toll through the fomenting of civil strife, a campaign of murder and kidnapping and brutality, all of it designed to stifle Iraqi democracy at birth, and al-Zarqawi was its most vicious persecutor. The death of al-Zarqawi is a strike against Al Qaeda in Iraq, and therefore a strike against Al Qaeda everywhere. But we should have no illusions. We know that they will continue to kill, we know that there are many, many obstacles to overcome. But they also know that our determination to defeat them is total, their methods, their ideas, their extremism that seeks to infect the overwhelming desire of the overwhelming majority of people, whatever their religion and whatever their nation, to live together in peace and harmony.

So I do not minimise the enormous challenges that remain in Iraq and elsewhere, but the election of the new government and its full formation today shows a new spirit to succeed, and our task obviously is to turn that spirit, that willingness and desire to succeed into effective action. If we are able to do so then we will have accomplished something that goes far beyond the borders of Iraq.

—british prime minister tony blair —

zarqawi is dead. this is a very positive development in the war in iraq. iraq’s government is now complete with the appointment of the last three cabinet members. we can also rejoice in that positive step. we still have a long way to go in iraq, but these two developments are certainly something the american people can look at as positive news from iraq. while we are not quite ready for the “mission accomplished” sign, we still should acknowledge the positive when we see it.

others are not so convinced that zarqawi should be dead, however. this blew my mind when i heard the father of nicholas berg, the guy zarqawi beheaded, basically say that it shouldn’t have happened. it’s one thing to forgive the guy that killed your son, but zarqawi was a terrorist and he got what was coming to him.

this was an exhange between charlie gibson of abc and michael berg. (h/t- newsbusters)

Charlie Gibson: “I wonder as you watch this now happening in repetition, if there are feelings of a desire in you for revenge?”

Michael Berg: “I would like these people to be stopped, I would like them to be arrested, I would like them to receive justice. I would not want to see any of them killed and I don’t want revenge. I don’t want to personally attack those people.”

wow. zarqawi was not simply a murderer, he was also a terrorist. being arrested and receiving justice in a court of law is not an appropriate punishment for the many crimes zarqawi has committed against not only nick berg, but others as well. he did receive justice, and that kind of justice was exactly what zarqawi deserved.

iraq was about more than WMDs, although that was part of the case for the invasion of iraq. andy mccarthy makes the case here.

The American people vigorously support, and have always vigorously supported, the deployment of our military for the purpose of capturing and killing terrorists in promotion of American national security—taking the battle to enemy so we don’t need to fight them here. That is the Iraq mission we have always stood behind—more than finding Saddam’s WMD, a lot more than grand democracy-building initiatives, and a whole lot more than crafting new governments that establish Islam as the state religion.

Of course we must support the long-term goals of the democracy project. But we must be realistic that they are long-term goals. Democracy in the Islamic world is a matter of cultural upheaval over years, not just a few elections. Whether the project can ultimately succeed is debatable. One thing, however, is surely indisputable: Like the U.S. national security it is intended to promote, the democracy project cannot be sustained unless the enemy is first defeated.

It was not democracy that killed Zarqawi. It was the United States military.

We began the war on terror with the clear-eyed understanding that Islamic militants cannot be reasoned with; they have to be eradicated. Winning the war on terror will require the resolve to let our forces do their job—despite occasional vilification from fair-weather allies who bask in the protection of American power while shouldering none of its burdens.

Today reminds us that we have the power to get the job done. The remaining question is whether we have the will.

that’s a hard question to answer. when all that we see on the news about iraq seems to be bad news, it’s hard for anyone to believe that there is progress being made there. that doesn’t mean that nothing positive is happening there. the death of zarqawi and the completion of the new government are positive developments for iraq, but will this be enough to convince the american people that it’s worth completing the mission in iraq? i’m not sure that it is.

Technorati Tags: , ,

10 Comments Posted on Editorials, George W. Bush, Iraq

we were right to get rid of saddam (part 2)

(continued from part 1)

i have a question for my democratic friends who agree with me that we had to get rid of saddam. let’s say that the united states decided not to invade iraq, but that we still wanted to kick saddam out of power. how do you propose that we accomplish this goal? do we continue pushing the UN to keep an eye on saddam? do we make more threats? do we encourage the UN to pass more scary resolutions? WWJKD? (what would john kerry do? the world will thankfully never know.)

i have heard the argument that saddam was no more evil than dictators of other countries who treat their people worse than dogs, and that the united states doesn’t interfere militarily in all of those countries. i disagree with the first part, and acknowledge the second part. there are a few reasons why the united states doesn’t interfere militarily in every case of human rights violations or oppressive governments. for one thing, even though we have the best and most capable military in the world, there’s not enough of ’em to deal with all people struggling against their governments. saddam hussein’s iraq supported terrorism, which made it a top priority of previous and current presidential administrations. this made saddam a threat to the security of the middle east and also to the security of the united states. any links to al-qaeda are still to be conclusively proved in the minds of many. however, there are other groups associated with saddam that were involved in terrorist activity, as i’ve mentioned before.

for those who opposed the war in iraq from the beginning, and for those who oppose it now, that ship has sailed, ladies and gentlemen. what’s done is done. saddam is out of power. that’s a good thing. iraq is slowly progressing toward becoming a country friendly to democracy. the process is not as quick as we would all like to see, but there is no other alternative to seeing iraq through its current struggles.

ok…i’m ready now…bring on the violent disagreement. 🙂

Technorati Tags: , ,

Posted on Editorials, Iraq

we were right to get rid of saddam (part 1)

saddam is no longer ruler of iraq, and that’s a huge step in the right direction for the future of iraq. we did the right thing by getting rid of him. he was a threat to us and to neighboring countries. bush said that saddam had chemical and biological weapons because he did have them in the past, and it was reasonable to believe that he still had them. of course, with saddam not fully co-operating with the UN weapons inspectors, there’s no way to have concrete proof that the US and the UK and others got it wrong. all saddam had to do to stop the invasion, if no WMDs were present, was to allow full access for the weapons inspectors. two possibilities exist. either saddam had a death wish, or he had something he was hiding from us. do you really think saddam was stupid enough to risk invasion of iraq just so that his neighbors could still have the illusion that iraq was armed with WMD? i guess it’s possible. after all, saddam was never known for his great military strategy.

based on what we knew about saddam’s history, isn’t it logical to err on the side of caution? ask yourself what would have happened if bush was right and saddam used those WMD’s. imagine the political fallout from that decision to do nothing about saddam. dubya was screwed either way with this decision. either he lets a guy with a known history of being evil to his own people and starting wars with other countries keep on breaking the rules and potentially acquire WMD, or he uses military force to remove saddam as a threat. what a tough decision.

there are many good reasons why saddam had to be replaced. that’s what the president was arguing — that saddam was a threat who needed to be dealt with. his press people were not on message when they responded affirmatively to the questions about saddam being an “imminent threat”. that’s just a matter of semantics, i guess, because even though the President didn’t use those exact words, he did emphasize the urgency of dealing with saddam sooner rather than later.

i don’t want the US to be the world’s policemen. i don’t want the US to be constantly bailing out countries that should be handling their own business. in an ideal world, the UN would be handling these international affairs and enforcing its own regulations against rogue members. this world can never, and will never, exist. the UN has too many of its own internal problems to effectively handle the problems and concerns of its members. that’s why i’m not convinced that even if the UN is reformed, it will ever meet our expectations.

(to be continued–comments return after part 2 is posted)

Technorati Tags: , , ,

5 Comments Posted on Uncategorized

more on rahman

update: abdul rahman has been released and as far we know, is still alive. hopefully we can keep him that way.

this is not just about abdul rahman. this is also about others in afghanistan who have chosen to reject islam and choose christianity. will we raise our voices just as loudly for those who follow a similar path to rahman? will we object to the denial of religious freedom to others in afghanistan and press for a permanent policy change? the answer to those questions has yet to be determined.

william f. buckley jr(editor of national review) :

Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns did not earn a medal of freedom for his public statement in the matter, but he was formally correct in saying, “This is a case that is not under the competence of the United States. It is under the competence of the Afghan authorities.”

ThatÂ’s right. And the hell with Afghan supremacy. If an occupying military force whose presence every day continues to be critical to keep Afghanistan free cannot protect one citizen who embraces the faith of our fathers, then the government of Afghanistan should pause for a moment to worry not about the indignation of the Afghan people if Rahman is kept safe. Thought should be given to the indignation of the American people, who will stare in disbelief at the phenomenon of a country recently liberated by the expenditure of American lives and money failing to protect from the wrath of the mob a 41-year-old citizen whose crime was having chosen Christ.

couldn’t have said it better myself. read more.

more conflicting interpretations of the koran bring into question its “peaceful” nature. investor’s business daily has some tough queries for cair (council on american-islamic relations). what we would really like to know (and IMD dares to ask) is whether the koran actively promotes violence against infidels and those who choose to reject islam. i’m not an expert on the koran, but the evidence to support this seems to be there based on what i’ve read in the above article and others.

cair and others in muslim leadership owe it to those in their religion (who are not participating in acts of violence) to set the rest of us straight if we are misunderstanding islam. i don’t think we are. this doesn’t mean that i believe that all muslims are terrorists, or that they all support terrorists. what the rioters, suicide bombers, and spiritual leaders of islam are saying and doing does not represent the average muslim. that goes without saying. it’s harder to separate the koran from its own words about the appropriate punishment for unbelievers.

previous:
afghani democracy: a flaw in execution

Technorati Tags: ,

2 Comments Posted on Uncategorized

afghani democracy: a flaw in execution

Mark Steyn:

It’s not enough for Abdul Rahman to get off on a technicality. Afghanistan is supposed to be “the good war,” the one even the French supported, albeit notionally and mostly retrospectively. Karzai is kept alive by a bodyguard of foreigners. The fragile Afghan state is protected by American, British, Canadian, Australian, Italian and other troops, hundreds of whom have died. You cannot ask Americans or Britons to expend blood and treasure to build a society in which a man can be executed for his choice of religion. You cannot tell a Canadian soldier serving in Kandahar that he, as a Christian, must sacrifice his life to create a Muslim state in which his faith is a capital offense.

this is where the neo-con theory is tested. the new democracy that the united states helped to create with the sacrifice of many of our military men and women is still struggling with sharia law. i don’t think this is what we had in mind when we kicked out the taliban — that a man could be executed under this new government’s laws for converting to Christianity . the legitimate question that should be asked here is whether our sacrifice has produced the kind of democracy that we intended to bring to afghanistan. based on the current state of affairs, that’s a debatable question. we cannot allow the sacrifice of american lives to be trivialized by allowing an execution like this to take place.

at this moment, the case against abdul rahman has been dismissed. this isn’t the end of the story. he could still be put to death. there is still the possibility that islamic radicals could take their own vigilante action against rahman regardless of what the government decides about him. we cannot allow this. the united states and its allies have sacrificed the lives of their men and women to bring freedom as well as self-governance to afghanistan, and we have the right to object to the treatment of rahman.

more reading:
Afghan Christian Rejects Islam— the koran vs. christianity (california conservative)
Free Abdul Rahman–washington times op-ed
Steyn: Will we stick our necks out for his faith?
Michelle Malkin: ABDUL RAHMAN TO BE RELEASED

Technorati Tags: ,