Go Smart, Go Cold, Go Strong

The rebuilding of Iraq in the aftermath of the US-led coalition overthrow of Saddam Hussein is not going well, to say the least. Hopes were high in 2003 that a democracy in the heart of the arab Middle East would bring centuries-needed change to this area of the world. The high hopes have given way to the reality that in the Islamic arab world sectarian hatreds are deeper than the desire for peace, prosperity, and freedom of thought. Al Zarqawi's dream of sparking a Sunni-Shiite war is on the verge of fruition, helped along by the likes of Muqtada Al Sadr, the Shiite warlord who allegedly ordered the murder of rival cleric Abdul Majid al-Khoei. Instead of going after the boy cleric when the chances were high that the fallout would be manageable the coalition allowed itself to be swayed by those who said Sadr would calm down once he entered the political process. Well, Sadr entered the process and delivered to himself the prize of a prime minister who follows his commands.

The anti-American voices nipping at George W. Bush's heels for the past six years have succeeded in badgering his Administration into fighting a politically correct war, and today we see the results of this capitulation to the worldwide Left, that loose confederation of assorted special interest groups who control the ideological bulk of the mass media. The result is chaos in Iraq, a re-energized do nothing United Nations unwilling or unable to define "terrorism", and the prospect for total war in the very region of the world the president and his advisors wished to stabilize. The body blow for the Bush Administration for all their accommodation is a Democrat opposition majority set to take congressional power in January, which will quickly lead to open outcry --- with total support from Democrat-friendly media --- to abandon the job of introducing reforms to the arab Middle East, a precursor to stability. In short, Democrats, the Left, and terrorism now hold the upper hand in their separate but coincident desire to destroy a president who did the right thing for the right reasons.

Islamofascist terror is on the march in Iraq, Lebanon, and elsewhere in the Middle East as well as Africa. What is the West to gain by allowing these destroyers of civilization to seize the initiative? The West and all civilized nations cannot believe for a moment that the zeal to neuter American leadership in the world will result in success against enemies who recognize no limit to barbarism. By enabling Islamofascist forces through the mass media's unrelenting focus on the real and alleged errors by the coalition the Left have elevated the quest for political power above security, a prescription for even more brutal future war against the foes we're now fighting. No sane observer believes that once America and the allies withdraw from Iraq the Islamic fundamentalists will decide that reasonable methods for settling their non-negotiable political demands will be the order of the day.

However, all is not lost; the coalition and those throughout the world who still believe in freedom of thought, freedom of religion, and freedom to disagree politically with those in power can and must present a new plan to rally the cause. The 2006 recruitment rate for the Army is near an all-time high, as well as the retention rate for those already serving. The desire by young Americans to protect our way of life speaks to their intelligence as much as to their courage and patriotism. These brave young men and women understand very well that the same demands for Sharia law in Western European countries foreshadow the same demands that will echo in America in due time, should we forget the enemy we're fighting. Even with the onslaught of negative press for the past several years our military, new and seasoned troops, have kept their focus on the need to win this war even as the elected and chattering class naysayers have lost their will to to fight, if it was ever there in the first place.

The opportunity to win lies in finally admitting that terrorism is a tactic; the enemy is Islamic fundamentalism. The opportunity is to put aside any pretense to political correctness and assert that the civilized world is fighting an enemy with several faces but only one identity --- militant Islam. Ask yourself: Since 9/11 how many leading Islamic clerics, either Sunni or Shiite, have you seen or heard denouncing terrorism? Very few if any, should your experience be similar to mine. In nearly every case of alleged denunciation of terror one hears a low-level spokesman for Islamic clerics equivocating while the imams hide behind a studied wall of silence. In fact, by their failure to condemn and denounce terrorism these many years the clerics and scholars have tacitly approved mass barbarity as a valid means of resistance. It appears that Hell will freeze over before a critical mass of prominent Islamic clerics and scholars assembles to declare that the wanton slaughter of innocents and non-combatants is against the religion of Mohammed. As for the assertions that a forceful and dynamic debate is going on within mosques throughout the world regarding terrorism? Put aside that propaganda; the masses of moslems who wish to live in peace and freedom are silenced by the same terrorists who speak on their behalf. The anecdotal evidence is the dearth of prominent Islamic clerics unequivocally condemning terrorism and the companion Islamic tenet that all unbelievers are second-class human beings in every respect. Therefore, by failing to clearly articulate that Islam condemns the barbarity it practices Islamic leaders must bear the brunt of blame for what has and is transpiring now in Iraq and elsewhere throughout region.

The Bush Administration attempted to keep religious ideologies out of the war equation from the outset but that, as much as any policy decision, has led to the current stalemate. The time is now for the Administration to demand that leading Islamic clerics and scholars speak out firmly and unequivocally against terrorism that takes far more moslem lives than the lives of infidels. (That word --- infidel --- is the religious equivalent of the "N-word" if you care to think about it.) The president and our allied leaders should demand this gesture as preliminary groundwork for the messy job ahead; and shouldn't moslems be required to adhere to minimal standards of humanity? Were the fault line of the war really the Israel-Palestinian conflict a political solution would have been achieved years ago. The stark truth is that militant Islam has been at war for decades with societies who have nothing to do with the aforementioned conflict. What's the reason for Islamic terrorism in Kashmir, or Sudan where a slow-motion genocide is now taking place? Zionism? Sheesh! There is no end to the list of grievances that Islamic terrorists belabor to justify their underlying motive of the worldwide dominance of strict Islamic Sharia.

The recent media buzz is about the Pentagon's Go Big, Go Long, Go Home options for Iraq. Go Big: an infusion of thousands more troops. Go Long, pare down troop levels but be prepared to stay in the region for years. Go Home, quit the fight completely. There are three options, for sure; win by staying on the offensive and jettisoning the politically correct war fighting strategy, withdraw from the battle and lose to fight a much larger war in the future, and partition of various Middle Eastern countries along tribal and religious lines.

The allies must know that to withdraw from the fight will lead to more horrendous bloodshed than can be imagined in the Middle East. The only decision, based upon events that have overtaken the original blueprint for peace and prosperity, is to ratchet up the effort and to announce beforehand that henceforth there will be no accommodation with those who seek to stall our offensive. The decision to leave Sadr free to raise his armed militia mirrors the decision to leave Fallujah alone until events forced the US to take the city. Now it's time for the US to take down Sadr, and if his Iranian supporters step in the decision to wipe out their nuclear enrichment facilities should swiftly follow. If the allies invaded Iraq to ensure no WMD technology fell into the hands of our enemies why on earth would they allow WMD programs to go forward in a country whose leader has publicly called for the annihilation of Israel? Did the West learn nothing from Hitler's public statements prior to his launching Blitzkrieg and the Final Solution?

The allies find themselves caught in the middle of impending sectarian warfare in Iraq, and this sectarian war could easily spread to other countries in the region. Why not make that threat a bargaining chip in dealing with moslem countries in the region? Why spare the fence-sitting Islamic states who want the allies to do their dirty work of deposing Saddam and disarming Iran but support the madrassas network that raises and nurtures Islamic terrorists by the tens of thousands? If the arab Middle East cannot or will not rein in their Islamic fundamentalists who wage war on the rest of humanity then why not explain to them in terms they will understand that the war will soon be on their soil? It goes without saying that given Al Zarqawi's success in sparking the Iraqi Sunni-Shiite killings one needn't be a rocket scientist to know that Al Qaeda has this planned for every country in the region.

The best policy for the allies now is to give our friends and enemies alike the clear message that the war against Islamofacism will go one of three ways according to their response to the crisis. One, it will go the way the allies originally hoped, with the introduction of political reform and freedom of thought, with the hot pursuit of those obstructing us including Sadr, Bashir Assad, and the Iranian-Hizbollah-Hamas theocrats if need be. Two, the sectarian war will spread throughout the region, with moslem murdering moslem on a grander scale than is the case in Iraq should the coalition decide to withdraw on a slow timetable. Three, partition of Iraq and the partition of several other countries in the region along ethnic, religious, and tribal lines. There certainly are options the coalition of the willing have once we ditch the politically-correct shackles we've allowed to subvert our policies. What remains to be seen is if our leaders have the will to choose those options.