As Iraq becomes more vacant of U.S. troops from the draw down, man are asking the question. It’s been almost ten years, was it worth the fight and was Iraq really a threat?
To further stop terrorism, we must cut off logistic and state support of terror. Iraq has been a sore spot for many people, but many do not realize why Iraq was so relevant to The War on Terror. Terrorist cells need support. They come in various ways, but the largest support is from sponsored states. Like Iran, Iraq has had a history of supporting terrorist activity. The concern of many nations after 9/11 was that Saddam had the ambition, and weapons to deliver into the hands of various terrorists groups. The United Nations, British Intelligence, and CIA all supplied Intel stating that Saddam Hussein possessed chemical weapons. After all, he used them on his own people and gassed the Kurds. Fear of Saddam giving access of such weapons to terrorists was of major concern. As it was, Saddam had already violated every United Nations Sanction that had been put into place. He also continued to refuse U.N. inspectors to come in the country. According to the United States Government, the following 16 sanctions were violated in full. These sanctions include the possession and use of weapons of mass destruction, human rights violations, adhering to weapons inspections, and much more. The following is a list of all violated sanctions by the Saddam regime.
UNSCR 678 – November 29, 1990
- Iraq must comply fully with UNSCR 660 (regarding Iraq’s illegal invasion of Kuwait) “and all subsequent relevant resolutions.”
- Authorizes UN Member States “to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area.”
UNSCR 686 – March 2, 1991
- Iraq must release prisoners detained during the Gulf War.
- Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.
- Iraq must accept liability under international law for damages from its illegal invasion of Kuwait.
UNSCR 687 – April 3, 1991
- Iraq must “unconditionally accept” the destruction, removal or rendering harmless “under international supervision” of all “chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities.”
- Iraq must “unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material” or any research, development or manufacturing facilities.
- Iraq must “unconditionally accept” the destruction, removal or rendering harmless “under international supervision” of all “ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 KM and related major parts and repair and production facilities.”
- Iraq must not “use, develop, construct or acquire” any weapons of mass destruction.
- Iraq must reaffirm its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
- Creates the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to verify the elimination of Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons programs and mandated that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verify elimination of Iraq’s nuclear weapons program.
- Iraq must declare fully its weapons of mass destruction programs.
- Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq.
- Iraq must cooperate in accounting for the missing and dead Kuwaitis and others.
- Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.
UNSCR 688 – April 5, 1991
- “Condemns” repression of Iraqi civilian population, “the consequences of which threaten international peace and security.”
- Iraq must immediately end repression of its civilian population.
- Iraq must allow immediate access to international humanitarian organizations to those in need of assistance.
UNSCR 707 – August 15, 1991
- “Condemns” Iraq’s “serious violation” of UNSCR 687.
- “Further condemns” Iraq’s noncompliance with IAEA and its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
- Iraq must halt nuclear activities of all kinds until the Security Council deems Iraq in full compliance.
- Iraq must make a full, final and complete disclosure of all aspects of its weapons of mass destruction and missile programs.
- Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
- Iraq must cease attempts to conceal or move weapons of mass destruction, and related materials and facilities.
- Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors to conduct inspection flights throughout Iraq.
- Iraq must provide transportation, medical and logistical support for UN and IAEA inspectors.
UNSCR 715 – October 11, 1991
- Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors.
UNSCR 949 – October 15, 1994
- “Condemns” Iraq’s recent military deployments toward Kuwait.
- Iraq must not utilize its military or other forces in a hostile manner to threaten its neighbors or UN operations in Iraq.
- Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors.
- Iraq must not enhance its military capability in southern Iraq.
UNSCR 1051 – March 27, 1996
- Iraq must report shipments of dual-use items related to weapons of mass destruction to the UN and IAEA.
- Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1060 – June 12, 1996
- “Deplores” Iraq’s refusal to allow access to UN inspectors and Iraq’s “clear violations” of previous UN resolutions.
- Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1115 – June 21, 1997
- “Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access” to UN inspectors, which constitutes a “clear and flagrant violation” of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.
- Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
- Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.
UNSCR 1134 – October 23, 1997
- “Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access” to UN inspectors, which constitutes a “flagrant violation” of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.
- Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
- Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.
UNSCR 1137 – November 12, 1997
- “Condemns the continued violations by Iraq” of previous UN resolutions, including its “implicit threat to the safety of” aircraft operated by UN inspectors and its tampering with UN inspector monitoring equipment.
- Reaffirms Iraq’s responsibility to ensure the safety of UN inspectors.
- Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1154 – March 2, 1998
- Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, and notes that any violation would have the “severest consequences for Iraq.”
UNSCR 1194 – September 9, 1998
- “Condemns the decision by Iraq of 5 August 1998 to suspend cooperation with” UN and IAEA inspectors, which constitutes “a totally unacceptable contravention” of its obligations under UNSCR 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115, and 1154.
- Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors, and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1205 – November 5, 1998
- “Condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation” with UN inspectors as “a flagrant violation” of UNSCR 687 and other resolutions.
- Iraq must provide “immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation” with UN and IAEA inspectors.
UNSCR 1284 – December 17, 1999
- Created the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC) to replace previous weapon inspection team (UNSCOM).
- Iraq must allow UNMOVIC “immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access” to Iraqi officials and facilities.
- Iraq must fulfill its commitment to return Gulf War prisoners.
- Calls on Iraq to distribute humanitarian goods and medical supplies to its people and address the needs of vulnerable Iraqis without discrimination. Source: (2008, White house).
There have been many critics on Iraq. There are various reasons why, but some of the following are the more common objections:
1. Objection: “The Bush Administration planned for an attack against Iraq before September 11th, 2001” (Iraqi Veterans against the War, 2008).
Counter Objection: “Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people. And mark my words he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. These words were uttered by William Jefferson Clinton, not by George W. Bush, to explain why the U.S. launched air strikes against Saddam in 1998. But no one has accused President Clinton of distorting intelligence. It is not just the Bush and Clinton Administrations that believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. The intelligence services of Britain, France, Russia, Germany, and Israel, among many others, held similar opinions” (Phillips, 2004). President Bush was picking up where Clinton left off, of course he had plans for a conflict, the administration before him concurred in the fact a threat was inevitable and needed swift action.
2. Objection: “They used the false pretense of an imminent nuclear, chemical and biological weapons threat to deceive Congress into rationalizing this unnecessary conflict” (Iraqi Veterans against the War, 2008).
Counter Objection: It is not just the Bush and Clinton Administrations that believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. The intelligence services of Britain, France, Russia, Germany, and Israel, among many others, held similar opinions” (Phillips, 2004). Furthermore, according to Britt Hume, the number two man for Saddam’s Air force stated that weapons of mass destruction were secretly moved into Syria by plane (2006). The Washington post states that the CIA says they can’t rule out this move. According to the CIA the move is sufficiently creditable. This is supported by the fact there was satellite photos showing mass numbers of Iraqi military cargo trucks lined up entering the Syrian border, Syria has been a known receiver of such weapons in the past(2006). After all, when the police are knocking down the door, the drugs are being flushed down the toilet. No one can logically argue that Saddam would leave weapons hanging around when he knew Allied Forces were coming. Newsmax.com reported in 2005 that when Allied forces entered Iraq, they discovered 500 tons of yellow cake uranium. It was located at the Tuwaitha Nuclear Weapons Research and Development Plant just south of Baghdad (2005). This uranium is one step away from being weapons grade material, it only needs enrichment. Five hundred shells of chemical weapons were also uncovered in Iraq, one of which was located inside a roadside bomb (Washington post, 2006).
According to Newsmax “ Ivan Oelrich, a physicist at the Federation of American Scientists, told the Associated Press that if it was of the 3 percent to 5 percent level of enrichment common in fuel for commercial power reactors, the 1.8 tons could be used to produce enough highly enriched uranium to make a single nuclear bomb” (2005). The article further states that a physicist tapped by Saddam Hussein stated that the nuclear program continued after the first Gulf War and was funded through 1997. Then it was put on standby, with the ability to continue at a moment’s notice. (2005). With the refusal of inspectors being able to come in, and everything that has come to light, the ingredients are here for a very dangerous situation. Based on the above stated information, it is more than reasonable to say there was nothing “false” about such a threat.
3. Objection: “The reasons and rationale given for the invasion were fraudulent.
There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq during the time of the invasion according to US officials and former chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix. The idea that Al Qeada and the 9/11 terrorist attacks were connected to Saddam Hussein and the Baath party were proven false in the 9/11 Commission Report.” (Iraqi Veterans against the War, 2008).
Counter Objection: There are serious flaws with this argument. In regards to “there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq”, see counter argument number two, There clearly were. The definition of a WMD is the following: “Any weapon or device that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors, a disease organism, or radiation or radioactivity” (Csa discovery guides, 2008). Everything listed in counter argument number two is by definition a weapon of mass destruction, and was found in Iraq. When it comes to the 9/11 commission report, and Saddam having ties to Al-Qaeda, the report was published in 2004. Information discovered since its release has proved otherwise. In 2008 The Sun reported the following: “A Pentagon review of about 600,000 documents captured in the Iraq war attests to Saddam Hussein’s willingness to use terrorism to target Americans and work closely with jihadist organizations throughout the Middle East” (Lake, 2008). Lake goes on to stating the following:
“The Iraqi Intelligence Service in a 1993 memo to Saddam agreed on a plan to train commandos from Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the group that assassinated Anwar Sadat and was founded by Al Qaeda’s second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahiri. In the same year, Saddam ordered his intelligence service to “form a group to start hunting Americans present on Arab soil; especially Somalia.” At the time, Al Qaeda was working with warlords against American forces there. Saddam’s intelligence services maintained extensive support networks for a wide range of Palestinian Arab terrorist organizations, including but not limited to Hamas. Among the other Palestinian groups Saddam supported at the time was Force 17, the private army loyal to Yasser Arafat” (Lake, 2008). Upon further investigation it was found that Iraqi military documents were discovered showing close links to Saddam and Al-Qaeda. According to Scott Wheeler, with CNS News.com, He states the following: “Iraqi intelligence documents, confiscated by U.S. forces and obtained by CNSNews.com, show numerous efforts by Saddam Hussein’s regime to work with some of the world’s most notorious terror organizations, including al-Qaida, to target Americans. The documents demonstrate that Saddam’s government possessed mustard gas and anthrax, both considered weapons of mass destruction, in the summer of 2000, during the period in which United Nations weapons inspectors were not present in Iraq- papers show that Iraq trained dozens of terrorists inside its borders” (2004).
Scott Wheeler goes on to write the following concerning the documents: “A former weapons inspector with the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), a retired CIA counter-terrorism official with vast experience dealing with Iraq, and a former advisor to then-presidential candidate Bill Clinton on Iraq – were asked to analyze the documents. All said they comport with the format, style and content of other Iraqi documents from that era known to be genuine” (2004). According to Scott Wheeler other researchers did not find this surprising, and had warned of a backlash from Saddam for the humiliation of the first Gulf War. Scott Wheeler’s article states the following: “Laurie Mylroie, who wrote the book “Study of Revenge: Saddam Hussein’s Unfinished War Against America,” and advised Bill Clinton on Iraq during the 1992 presidential campaign, told CNSNews.com that the papers represented “the most complete set of documents relating Iraq to terrorism, including Islamic terrorism” against the U.S. Mylroie has long maintained that Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism against the United States. The documents obtained by CNSNews.com, she said, include “correspondence back and forth between Saddam’s office and Iraqi Mukhabarat [intelligence agency]. They make sense. This is what one would think Saddam was doing at the time.” Bruce Tefft, a retired CIA official who specialized in counter-terrorism and had extensive experience dealing with Iraq, said that “based on available, unclassified and open source information, the details in these documents are accurate …” (2004). Based on this information, there were weapons of mass destruction, and Saddam had very close ties with terrorist groups including Al-Qaeda.
The war on terror is very complicated, which requires much research to accurately grasp. Iraq clearly had much ambition to further its threat to the west. When 9/11 took place a great game of chess was unleashed on the world, and threats needed to be prioritized. Too many people become fixated on the location of action. Iraq is just one battlefield in a global war. With that said however, the Intel that had been provided, and the Intel that has since been found, it is safe to say that Iraq was a logical military action to stop powerful arms from getting in the hands of Islamic Jihadists.
References
(2008). Retrieved January 16, 2009, from The White House Web site:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect2.html
(2005). Cia cant rule out wmd move to syria. from
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/apr/27/20050427-121915-1667r/
In Csa discovery guides [Web]. Retrieved 12/03/2008, from
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/terror/gloss.php
(2005). The uranium joe wilson didn’t mention. Retrieved 11,23,2008, from
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/17/171214.shtml
Lake, Eli (2008). Report details saddams terroist ties. Retrieved 12/03/2008, from
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/report-details-saddams-terrorist-ties/72906/
Hume, Britt (2006). Fox news, Wmd in syria. Retrieved 11,23,2008, from
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,182941,00.html
(2008). Iraqi veterans against the war. Retrieved December 13, 2008, Web site:
Phillips, James (2004). Iraq: One year later. Retrieved 12/13/2008, from
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Iraq/wm453.cfm
Pincus, Walter (2006). Munitions found in iraq renew debate. Retrieved 11,23,2008, from
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2006/06/30/AR2006063001528.html
Wheeler, Scott (2004). Iraqi documents show saddam possessed wmd, had extensive terror ties. Retrieved 11,23,2008, from
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/10/4/141421.shtml
By Nick Dial
“We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines”- President Obama, 5/19/2011.
Speak for yourself, Mr. President. While you represent the United States as a figure head, you do not have the right to serve as a mouth piece for the American people as a whole. We have a voice of our own, and Statements such as “we” and “America believes” when dealing with our dear friend Israel, and your absurd way of selling out a faithful ally is both naive and unwarranted. When dealing with radical positions that support your picture perfect view of the world such as this, try using words like “I” or “it is my opinion or position.” After all, you have had no problem using words as “I” in the many other policies you have pushed, including the killing of Bin Laden. Why start bringing us into the mix now?
President Obama’s recent position on Israel is not just naïve, it’s extremely dangerous. Apparently Obama fails to understand the fact of what the word “security” means. This president cannot commit to securing our own borders, and yet he has the audacity to lecture a nation surround by countries that vow its destruction give up their much needed buffer zones between them and the very people that want to kill them. Has this Harvard graduate never picked up a history book? Is he not aware that Israel was attacked while holding these very borders he is pushing for them to withdraw too? This president acts as if the very discontent between the Arab nations and the Jewish state of Israel hinges upon these borders, and therefore return to these borders would magically erase the hostilities the Jewish people have faced for centuries.
Between 1947 and 1948, the Palestinians took the offensive against Israel after its declaration of a state. With over 6,000 casualties, it was among the bloodiest of conflicts to take place in the region. In 1956, Israel again was attacked, this time through organized resistance to Israel, such as the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization). In 1967, known as the Six Day War, Israel was attacked once more, this time in a combined effort by its neighbors such as Syria, Egypt, and Jordan, and once again, Israel thwarted this assault on their nation. After the six day war, Israel had gained territories which expanded their borders. In 1973, The Yom Kippur War was launched by the Syrians and Egyptians, causing Israel again to be dragged into a defensive conflict. Also, let’s not forget the ongoing acts of terror and indiscriminate firing of rockets into Israeli neighborhoods by the Palestinians and Lebanese.
I wonder… how would Obama handle such national security issues with the U.S., if our neighbors conducted themselves in such a way? What if Canada and Mexico vowed for our destruction and were headed by Al-Qaeda? Would we stand for other nations telling us how we should conduct our national security? Perhaps we would be expected to go back to pre-Mexican American war borders and expose millions of Americans? I think not, and Israel is no exception. The pre-1967 borders would leave Israel with a very thin strip of land. Looking at the below image, you can see its narrowest point at Netanya, which is a faint 9 miles wide. Israel’s main airport would be a mere 3 miles from hostile borders, well within missile range.
What President Obama is doing, is basically stating that Israel should commit tactical suicide with their national security. Lebanon and Palestine are both headed by terrorist organizations, HAMAS, and HEZBOLLA.
Following the president’s speech, HAMAS released the following statement:
Obama’s Mideast policy speech Thursday was a “total failure,” Hamas said Thursday evening.
“The (Arab) nation does not need a lesson on democracy from Obama,” said Hamas spokesman in the Gaza Strip, Sami Abu-Zuhri. “Rather, Obama is the one who needs the lesson given his absolute endorsement of Israel’s crimes and his refusal to condemn Israel’s occupation.”
“We will not recognize the Israeli occupation under any circumstances,” the Hamas spokesman said, while adding: “We object to intervention in our internal affairs.”
Based on what HAMAS has stated, they have made it clear that the borders of 1967 are no more relevant today than they were back in 1967. The only difference HAMAS sees is the fact they will have to cross more miles to push into the heart of Israel during an invasion. When you have Arab nations that clearly state they feel as if Israel has no right to exist at all, how can this president logically expect such nations to negotiate? The only achievement this president has done by taking this position, is validate the anti-Semitic movement of hostile Arab nations toward Israel, insult a loyal ally, and do all of this while in the safety of the United States. Perhaps if the president were personally exposed to the very real dangers the Israeli people face on a daily bases, he would not be so quick to take such foolish positions on a topic he apparently knows little about… military strategy and national security.
References:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/History/Modern+History/Centenary+of+Zionism/The+Arab-Israeli+Wars.htm
http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/05/hamas-to-obamas-anti-israel-speech-we-will-not-recognize-israel-under-any-circumstances/
By Nick Dial
Terrorism and the media have had a long-running relationship. In an imperfect world, they are, in fact, the perfect couple. The media needs terrorism to boost ratings, make money, and drive headlines. Terrorism needs the media to project fear, destruction, promote their message, and provide the ability to effect the globe through 24/7 news cycles that broadcast their horrific acts free of charge.
When it comes to terrorism, the media acts as a “force multiplier.” A force multiplier is something that increases a group’s ability to become more powerful without increasing the size of the group. For example, if you have a squad of 4 men armed with rifles, they are a formidable force against that of fellow men. Give these same men rocket launchers and grenades on top of the rifles they possess and they have now become 3 times more powerful with the ability to engage vehicles and targets that before would have been out of their ability. The media serves a similar purpose with terrorism. The media acts as a force multiplier by taking a single act and magnifying its effects by broadcasting it for all to see.
The media, in the past 10 years especially, has allowed terror cells to use our living rooms as a stage to act out their agendas. The shocking broadcast of Daniel Pearl and his beheading laid the foundation for more gruesome acts to be carried out, filmed, and televised. A terrorist once made the comment, “I would rather kill one man on camera, then a hundred men off camera”-Unknown. This statement pretty-well sums up the relationship between terrorism and the media. To carry out an act on camera provides the group to “capture” a horrific moment forever, and save it for later use, as if it were a weapon that can be used over and over again. John R. White, author of the book Terrorism and Homeland security, States the following, “terrorism becomes more horrific to create better drama. News film is constantly replayed, giving the illusion that attacks are repeated time and time again,” (2008). The media is considered by many terror groups a weapon, and will use it to the best of their abilities. Constantly, the media will be placed in the middle between the two as opposing forces use the media as a battleground of rhetoric and accusations. For example, in 2001 a U.S. Army helicopter crashed, and immediately the Taliban tried to claim responsibility for the event. The U.S. military however, publically denied that the Taliban played any role what so ever in the loss. An example of such action is shown below:
“An exchange of claim and counter-claim took place between Washington and the Taliban after the regime said it had recovered wreckage from a downed US helicopter inside Afghanistan.
Taliban fighters posed for television pictures next to aircraft wheels which the Taliban regime claimed had been taken from the wreckage in Helmand province, close to the southern city of Kandahar. The Al-Jazeera network showed the pieces of wreckage that the Taliban said were stenciled with words written in English.
But the Pentagon dismissed the claims, saying that none of its helicopters had been lost inside Afghanistan. The only helicopter crash, it said, was the accident in the early hours of Saturday when a Black Hawk, on standby for search and rescue for a Special Forces operation, came down inside Pakistan. Two US personnel were killed in the crash, which officials say may have been caused by a storm of dust created by the helicopter’s blades” (Buncombe, A, 2001.
This paragraph serves as a perfect example of how the media, becomes a virtual battle ground to sway public opinion and perception, as the old saying goes “those who control the media, control the war”-unknown.
Media is a central factor in any war, especially terrorism. Another factor that plays a critical role in war and terrorism as well is funding. Funding is the blood line that makes waging such actions possible, after all money makes the world go round, and funding is exactly what provides terrorism with the logistical capabilities needed to continue its agenda.
Funding for terrorism comes from several areas. Perhaps one of the largest areas of controversy is that of Islamic charities in the United States. According to the Washington post, The U.S. Government has linked many charities to supporting and funding terror groups and their activities.
“Charities based in Northern Virginia and sponsored by the government of Saudi Arabia invested millions of dollars in a company suspected of funding al Qaeda and the Islamic Resistance Movement, the government alleged for the first time yesterday.
An affidavit made public in federal court in Virginia contends that the Muslim charities gave $3.7 million to BMI Inc., a private Islamic investment company in New Jersey that may have passed the money to terrorist Islamic groups. The money was part of a $10 million endowment from unnamed donors in Jiddah, Saudi Arabia, according to the affidavit filed by David Kane of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement”(Farah, D, 2003).
Many of these charities have been shut down and their accounts frozen as a result. This continues to be an ongoing problem with terrorism and its funding.
The other major funder of terrorism is that of state sponsorship. For example, Iran fights a proxy war with both Israel and the United States through funding terror via an umbrella base organization. By terror groups being satellite attachments to Iran, they can receive funding through non direct means. For example groups may meet in a mosque for a sermon, but while there they are in reality conducting business for terrorism backed by Iran. This allows Iran what is known as “plausible deniability”. In the public eye they can play the game of not being involved, but the back scenes show a different story. An example of how an umbrella organization functions can be seen below.
(Diagram from “Terrorism: An Inconvenient Truth” By Nick Dial)
Terrorism has been, is, and will continue to be an ongoing battle. The media and funding are both key factors and critical for it to sustain its survival. While in a free society the media cannot be controlled, the largest thing that can and must be targeted is that of terrorism funding and its bloodline. The United States needs to continue to expand efforts to stop the flow of American currency into the coffers of terrorists. Whether people want to acknowledge the fact or not, every time we fill our gas tanks we fund terrorism. Terror sponsoring states continue to sell the United States oil, and gas being a essential element to modern living, forces us to indirectly fund terror every time we purchase gasoline. One major step in the right direction choke off such proxy funding of terror is to break ground here, on our own soil, here in the U.S. By utilizing all of our resources, natural gas and most importantly, OUR OIL, we would not only strengthen our national security, we will make money doing it.
References
Buncombe, A. (2001). Us denies taliban shot down helicopter in afghanistan. Retrieved from
Farah, D. (2003). U.s. links islamic charities, terrorist funding. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A17354-2003Aug19¬Found=true
White, J. (2008). Terrorism and homeland security (sixth edition). Belmont, Ca: Wadsworth cengage learning.
By Nick Dial
The debates people have over airport security consist of profiling, invasion of privacy, and check- in time.
“Profiling” has become a buzzword in today’s media with such a derogatory connotation it has become something of a dirty word. Today, profiling immediately gets related to abuse of power and unjust treatment. The fact is that profiling is necessary to effectively perform any real security and determent of crime.
On January 28, 2008 a covert tester for the Transportation Security Administration was able to sneak a mock bomb past airport security checkpoints undetected. According to CNN:
“ Jason – that’s the name CNN was asked to call him – slides a simulated explosive into an elastic back support. The mock bomb is as slim as a wallet; its fuse, the size of a cigarette. He wraps the support around his torso, and the bomb fits comfortably into the small of his back” (Meserve, Jeanne, Ahlers, Mike, 2008).
What is a “mock bomb?” It is a small, concealable device with a fuse that is replicated to look and feel as its real counterpart. The scary part is that this stealthy act of terrorism can be executed at any time.
In the days following 9/11 people were willing to sacrifice small inconveniences in the exchange for added security and peace of mind. People are starting to forget the issues that surrounded 9/11 and the reason added security was necessary. Since there has not been another successful attack since 9/11, awareness has dropped and complaints have come in earnest about the added security. George Santayana wrote, “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it”. In this case, the complacency beginning to be displayed only invites another attack – and once again, history repeats itself.
Racial profiling is a touchy topic, but one that should be examined thoroughly and honestly. The problem with discussions of profiling today is that people are not applying critical thinking to the topic. For example, police officers must profile when they patrol. They are, in fact, paid professional profilers. Every time they patrol they are observing their surroundings for activity that is suspicious. There are many factors that come into play that must be addressed, and yes, race is one of them. For example, let’s say an officer is patrolling in the middle of the night in a known predominately black neighborhood. The officer knows the history and surroundings of the area. He may also know that there is a rift between a white gang and black gang in that area. The white guy is wearing dark baggy clothing. At this point the officer must ask them self the following questions:
- Are white people commonly in the area?
- Are people normally in the area in the middle of the night?
- Do members of the rival gang wear baggy dark clothing, or clothing of similar appearance?
- Are the chances of this person being in this area going to lead to a confrontation?
These questions need to be examined critically and analytically. If most or all of these questions can be answered “yes”, would the officer be unjustly racially profiling for stopping the person to speak with them? The answer is no. There is a difference between profiling strictly based off of race, and profiling based on multiple factors. Race may be a contributing factor, but it is not the only factor. In this example, there is more than reasonable probable cause for the officer to suspect an issue may be at hand. The suspect is not breaking any laws by being there, however it is not unreasonable to engage the person in conversation in order to investigate. If nothing else the officer may offer to give the man a ride or notify him of the dangers of being in an unsafe part of town. The job of the officer is to protect all of the public, even if the man is a gang member.
With the previous example in mind let’s shift the situation to an airport. We must use what we currently know to combat the threats to the air traveler – in this case terrorism. We place a lot of responsibility on TSA, and they are charged with keeping hundreds of thousands of travelers safe as they go through these ports. To realistically combat the threat of terror, we must have guidelines in place to narrow down the search for the best results. If TSA treated an eighty year old grandmother as a suspect, we would be wasting valuable resources unless there was reasonable suspicion ahead of time to investigate such a person. With the issue of terrorism, here is what we know. There have been many terror attacks worldwide in the past 20 years. Of those, several have been directed toward the United States. The U.S.S. Cole was bombed by young Middle Eastern men. The First World Trade Center bombing was carried out by young Middle Eastern men. 9/11 was perpetrated by young Middle Eastern men, Arabs to be specific, and the recent plot of 2006 in England, where British authorities prevented the bombing of several U.S. bound planes, was being attempted by young Middle Eastern men. According to the Washington Post “Three of the four suicide attackers who killed 52 passengers in London’s transit system last summer were British citizens of Pakistani origin, investigators concluded. The fourth was identified as a Jamaican-born convert to Islam” (Ward, John, 2006). Based off this information, the ongoing perception of terror plots being carried by young Middle Eastern men or of Middle East decent is a correct one. They clearly state that three of the four men were of Pakistani decent, and the fourth was of Jamaican decent.
We know terror is real, and we know its threat continues to push our security to the limit. History shows a clear correlation between young men recruited by terror cells, especially men of Middle Eastern decent. Is it unreasonable for their age and ethnicity to be a red flag? Some may say yes, some may say, no. It could be argued that history shows it’s not illogical to place this at the top of many considerations when investigating a suspect. To disregard this fact would be foolish and naive. There is a clear history of bank robbers wearing ski mask, and if you walk into a bank with a mask on, it’s almost a guarantee you will be profiled and treated with apprehension from the moment you walk in the door. This is only logical- and what we know from history supports this apprehension.
When it comes to security and expectations of the public, we must remember we do not live in a perfect world. While “political correctness” works on paper, it rarely applies in real world security situations. If we want our safety guaranteed, or at the very least have our safety a top priority, then we must be willing to make certain compromises. We can’t have it both ways and expect an effective outcome.
References
Meserve, Jeanne, and Mike Ahlers. “TSA tester slips mock bomb past airport security.” CNN (2008): n. pag. Web. 24 Sep 2009.
Ward John, . “Plot to bomb U.S. bound jets is foiled.” Washington Pots (2006): n. pag. Web. 24 Sep 2009. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/10/AR2006081000152.html
By Nick Dial
Many people may not be aware that terrorism has a long history. While there has been a steady history of atrocities committed, it is the advent of modern day technologies that brings terrorism to our living rooms for all to see. It can no longer be ignored or neglected as much as it was before. To better understand modern terrorism, you must first take a look at the history behind it.
Terrorism has a long history, getting its roots during the French Revolution. The term terrorism was coined by Edmund Burke in the 18th century. He was referring to the brutal reform that had taken place by the revolutionist. They had decapitated thousands in public with little trial or justice of any kind. Since then, the term terrorism has taken many different meanings. Napoleon referenced resistance fighters during his world conquest as “terrorist”. The Germans did the same during WWII referring to any resistance, which was not recognized by an official military or government as “terrorist”. Today the meaning is drastically different. The FBI defines terrorism as the following: “The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (White, 2008, P. 7). Depending on where you live in the world may bring different definition of terrorism. The popular saying “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” may ring true in some cases, however I would argue Islamic jihad terrorism does not fall into this category. A freedom fighter must fight for true freedom, such as the French Resistance did against the Nazi occupation. Militant Islamic Jihad fights for the spread of Islamic purity law and Jihad (struggle or effort, now referred to as holy war). This law allows the oppression, abuse, and murder of women. Women cannot vote, drive, or move freely in public. This law even goes to extremes such as not allowing someone to carry tomatoes and cucumbers in the same basket, for this is a “sexual innuendo”. This law has no tolerance for people of diverse faith. All who oppose this ideology, Muslim included are regarded as enemy and therefore need to be eliminated, only then will true Islam be restored. The most who suffer from this ideology are Muslims themselves.
Modern day terrorism is dominated by Islamic Jihad. This wasn’t always the case. During the 60’s and 70’s, Latin American terrorism was very active. Its structure was founded from Marxist and socialistic values. The organization of those groups is mimicked today by Islamic Jihadist groups. Many may not be aware of the roots of Militant Islam, so to better understand the roots of this ideology, an over view will be provided. Ibn Taymiyyah was an Islamic scholar in the 13th century. He sought to find a solution to the carnage during the crusade wars. He felt through prayer, he was enlightened to bring about Jihad. He felt that Muslims had lost their way, and need to seek purification from the inside out. He referred to this as the sixth pillar of Islam and called for the destruction of all opposition. Most Muslim scholars view Jihad as a struggle against evil. Taymiyyah took this and expanded it into more militant terms. Jonathan R. White, an expert in terrorism states the following: “Ibn Taymiyyah expanded the meaning of jihad by advocating attacks on none believers and impure Muslims” (White p. 193, 2008). The only tolerance he provided was for Muslims who conformed to this ideology. Since him, there have been various philosophers such as Abdul Wahhab, and Sayyid Qutb. Influenced by Taymiyyah, these philosophers have expanded on Taymiyyah’s militant theology and have had great influence on modern day terrorism. Osama Bin Laden is a devote follower of Qutb. Qutb teaches that all Islamic nations should impose Islamic purity law. When this is achieved, they should confront the world. Islamic terrorist leaders and organizations worldwide use these philosophers and their views as justification for their action.
Since the world trade center attacks of September 11th 2001, new legislation was passed known as the patriot act. This legislation opened the door for various agencies’s to go after terrorism and take an aggressive offensive role. According to www.whitehouse.gov, the official website for the white house, the patriot act accomplishes the following: “The Patriot Act Eliminates Double Standards By Allowing Agents To Pursue Terrorists With The Same Tools They Use Against Other Criminals. Before the Patriot Act, it was easier to track a drug dealer’s phone contacts than a terrorist’s phone contacts, and it was easier to obtain a tax cheat’s credit card receipts than to trace the financial support of an al-Qaida fundraiser. The Patriot Act corrected these double standards – and America is safer as a result” (The white house, 2008).
Basically the patriot act has allowed such things as expediting the process of intelligence gathering. Before, the judicial process took so long to obtain warrants, that the risk of losing the information or evidence was too great. By the time they would get approval, the evidence was long gone. This allows Agency’s to get started on the Intel gathering while the warrant is being obtained. This way they don’t lose the evidence. There still needs to be an approval for the warrant at however, and any evidence gathered with failure to obtain a legal warrant will result in invalid evidence. This is referred to as “sneak and peaks”. This has become an issue of controversy in the country. Many people feel that it violates civil rights. The problem is that people are forgetting one key thing. Agencies are going after enemy combatants in this country, in the past, they would have been called SPIES! When you have national security threats from an enemy combatant, domestic civil law is often not applicable or insufficient. There is a whole new range of federal anti-espionage and foreign threat laws that come into play.
Recently the Supreme Court decided that enemy combatants on foreign battlefields will be afforded the same rights as criminals within the United States borders. This is the first time in history this has been decided. The problem with this is the enemy will use our legal system, (which is in place to protects citizens) to exploit our media and judicial system. They don’t play by the rules, but will use the rules to work against the United States. Sometimes common sense needs to take over. This is our Achilles heel, and they will cut it every chance they get. Many argue that the patriot act does nothing to secure our safety, and that we are more vulnerable than before. According to the Heritage foundation (2007), 19 terrorist attacks have been thwarted since 9/11, some even “homegrown” right here in the United States (James J. 2007). With the rise in terror attacks all through 2009, we should be more perseverant now than ever. Fort Hood, the Christmas bomb attempt, the shooting of military recruiters, and several more plots foiled, should serve as a clear testimony that the fight is far from over. Only through strong will and a desire to succeed will we as a nation rise above this radical ideology.
References
Carafano, James J. (2007). U.s. thwarts 19 terrorist attacks against america since 9/11. Retrieved 12/01/2008, from
http://www.heritage.org/Research/HomelandDefense/bg2085.cfm
The white house. Retrieved December 7, 2008, from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/patriotact/
White, J. (2008). Terrorism and homeland security (sixth edition). Belmont, Ca: Wadsworth cengage learning.
On March 17th 2009, Janet Napolitano stated terrorism is a man caused disaster. On August 7th 2009, the Obama administration officially announced that the U.S. is no longer at war with terrorism. They stated the U.S. is no longer at war with Jihadist as well. On December 25th 2009, the Nigerian man on Northwest Airlines Flight 253 must have not received the memo. As the plane descended, passengers began to smell smoke and noticed an odd glow. “It sounded like a firecracker in a pillowcase,” said Peter Smith, a passenger from the Netherlands. “First there was a pop, and then (there) was smoke.” Smith said one passenger, sitting opposite the man, climbed over passengers, went across the aisle and tried to restrain the man. The heroic passenger appeared to have been burned. (Irwin, J, 2009).
The Nigerian man claimed he had been sent to destroy the plane on orders of Al-Qaeda. What could have been a very terrible disaster during “the most wonderful time of the year” ended in success as the passengers of flight 253 swarmed the terrorist as the explosives failed. Christmas miracles do exist after all. The plane was able to land with no life- threatening injuries.
The reason this event is one of massive significance is due to the fact that the world and even the U.S. is increasingly falling into a state of malaise and denial. A pre-9/11 mentality is taking hold and rhetoric such as “man caused disaster” is taking the place of common sense. Is it really going to take the periodical terror attack to remind the world that there are people with a violent agenda? The World Allies need to step up to the plate, and quit acting as if this is a law enforcement issue. This issue is one of massive scale, and the perpetrators have made it very clear they are at war.
One issue that seems to confuse people is the concept of terrorism itself. People must realize that after 9/11 the world changed. It will never go back to a pr-9/11 state. While you would think this was clear, many just seem not to comprehend this. They speak about “winning” the War on Terror as if there is one leader who is going to sign terms of surrender. This is false, and the sooner people wake up to this the better. This is not a war in the traditional sense. In terms of terrorism, it never will be.
When many think of the War on Terror, they often think of roadside bombs, air strikes and the engagement of military powers. According to the Merriam Webster Dictionary, war is defined as follows: “a: a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b: a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <a class war> <a war against disease>” (Merriam-webster online dictionary, 2008). Much like The War on Drugs, or The War on Disease, The War on Terror is a fight against an ideology. Fighting does take place, but it is a class war in the true sense. You have opposing philosophies squaring off to do battle. In this case the United States and her allies believe in human rights, the freedom of religion, happiness, and a world free of oppressing theology. The other fights for an Islamic world- wide government that will rid the world of all non believers, Muslims included.
Obama and his administration must wake up before harsh lessons of the past are repeated. The War on Terror is very complicated, which requires much research to accurately comprehend.. There are mass amounts of disinformation, mainstream “talking points”, and popular clichés that all fail to accurately bring the situation to the table. Iraq clearly had much ambition to further its threat to the West. When 9/11 took place, a great game of chess was unleashed on the world and threats needed to be prioritized. With the Intel that had been provided, and the Intel that has been found since, it is safe to say that Iraq is a logical military action determined to provide arms into the hands of Islamic Jihadists. Before 2001, history shows that the United States suffered from constant terrorist attacks. Since going on the offensive, there have been minor attacks throughout the world, and none on United States soil. This fact cannot be ignored. The War on Terror is effective, working, and necessary to secure the safety of this nation and her Allies. This is a world issue, not just a United States one. While the world continues to turn a blind eye, rogue nations of the world continue to arm themselves. History should serve as the ultimate guide when dealing with such issues. Hitler was ignored and not taken seriously at face value. His intentions were not hidden, and yet nations continued to ignore the warnings. That ignorance was paid by the blood of fifty million people whose lives were lost during WWII; all of which could have been avoided with proper intervention and action. Action is the key word in that statement. Sometimes it is not enough to sit back and talk; at times action must be taken and someone will have to do the heavy lifting. People must wake up. It should not take the occasional man on a plane trying to blow us up, or a terrible car bomb to remind us that these people are real and are bent on doing us harm. Ignorance and complacency may be comfortable and convenient, but it comes with a price and it is a luxury we can no longer afford.
References
Irwin, J. (Photographer). (2009). passengers help foil attack on detroit-bound plane. [Web]. Retrieved from
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091226/D9CR18JO0.html
Merriam-webster online dictionary. (2008). . Retrieved from
by Nick Dial
The connection between Israel and Palestine concerning terrorism in the Middle East is a long bloody road. Since 1947 ,with the introducton of Israel by the United Nations, the countries of the Middle East have been more inflamed then a serious case of hemorrhoids. In the end, the British felt like good chaps with the Balfour Declaration, while the Muslims felt betrayed. Israel became immediately under attack as a bastard nation of the west. Soon Israel had to earn their right to exist in blood. From Black September to the Six Day War, Israel was pushed into a sink or swim situation. The result of this has led to a nation that requires every citizen to serve in the military, an open carry policy for weapons, and an ever aggressive military constantly training. The difference of life or death literally relies on Israel’s ability to react quickly and powerfully. The tensions between Jews and Muslims are nothing new. however. They go back to biblical time and now where a saber was once used, F-16 fighting falcons and hellfire missiles take its place. The weapons may have changed with the times, but ,unfortunately, the ideology and inability to show tolerance for others has not. The rhetoric of the past has stayed the present and continues to shed blood on the very same sand that was repeatedly stained red centuries before. If the land was not so engulfed with bigotry and fertilized with the blood of the innocent, perhaps more would grow in the region then palm trees.
Today, Iran is the undisputed champion of funding terror. In the name of God this nation provides training, money, weapons, and good old fashioned propaganda for one purpose and one purpose only - to wipe Israel off the earth, kill infidels and all who support Israel’s existence, and to take a global grasp in the name of Islam so Mohammed can one day return and rule in all his glory. Iran’s cleric leadership looks at this as their divine duty, and will stop at nothing. Hamas, which comes from Egypt, and Hezbollah which comes from Iran, have something in common. They are both located in Gaza, they both hate Israel, they both receive funding, training and men from Iran, and Hamas is the “elected” government of Palestine. Asia Times stated the following:
“Although Hamas was a Sunni party and the Tehran government wanted to spread a Shi’ite Islamic revolution, the two parties were working together, each for personal reasons. Hamas wanted a regional heavyweight to supply it with arms. Iran wanted a military group to lean on in Palestine, just like it had Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Badr Brigade in Iran.” (Moubayed, Sami 2008).
If anyone wishes to understand Middle Eastern culture and survive, they must comprehend one thing above all. This part of the world does not respond to talk. It only responds to force and knows such. Talk has been attempted for centuries, but always comes down to a fight. Talking is perceived as a sign of weak ness and projecting such a weakness in this region leads to increased aggression by the other party. When the bull is staring you down, most times you have to smack him on the nose to get the point across. Recently, our new president and administration has been pushing for what history shows to be a big mistake. They wish to kiss the cobra on the nose and expect not to get bit in return. Despite warnings from Israel, President Obama attempted to talk to Iran with negations. According to News Vrine, Israel stated the following:
“President Obama’s policy of direct diplomacy with Iran may buy Tehran enough time to produce nuclear weapons, Shabtai Shavit, former chief of the Mossad intelligence agency, warned in an exclusive WND interview today.
“I don’t believe there is a political solution which can be achieved through negotiations with Iran,” he said.
“My concern is that until Obama finishes his learning curve of the subject, the Iranians are going to have maybe the first or even more nuclear bombs” (2009) .
“Learning curve” is the key word in this citation. Despite warnings from the older and wiser, our nation has foolishly elected a president who ran on rhetoric equivalent of high school student body speeches of chocolate milk for all and apparently learning on- the -job is ok. Obama sent Iran a letter, requesting talks with the nation. What was their response to Obama? Iran stated the following televised to the masses. “This means western ideology has become passive, that capitalist thought and the system of domination have failed” (Shepherd, Noel, 2009). If this was not enough to raise an eyebrow, the following will certainly ruffle a feather or two. President Obama and his administration are pledging to give nine hundred million dollars to Hamas. ( That’s right, as in the terrorist organization. ) The logic for such an action is to buy off loyalty. By providing money, they expect to have Hamas rely less on Iran and hopefully earn a soft spot in Hamas’s fluffy rocket shooting heart. Obama defends this action by stating that the money will not be given to “militants”. He declares the funds instead will be transferred to the United Nations Relief and Work Agency, also known as UNRWA. Therefore ,the money will be used for legitimate purposes, right? Unfortunately, like many Americans, Obama should have taken a history class or two. UNRWA has very friendly and close ties with Hamas. According to WorldNet Daily,
“On July 6, 2001, Hamas convened a conference in the UNRWA school in the Jabalya refugee camp in Gaza, with students, teachers, and school administrators in attendance. Yassin presented his ideology and then an official named Saheil Alhinadi, who represented the teaching sector of UNRWA, praised students who had recently carried out suicide attacks against Israel, declaring “the road to Palestine passes through the blood of the fallen and these fallen have written history with parts of their flesh and their bodies” (2009)
I’m sure given the mild language of the UNRWA, they would be more then ethical in the disbursement of these funds. A rocket, ….a hum,…I mean shovel for every man. The article goes on to state about intelligence reports that indicate weapons storage and firing of rockets from various UNRWA camps.
Let’s pretend for one minute that all the nine hundred million dollars were to go to honest use. There is one big loop hole that people have not addressed. Hamas is the elected government and much of its budget has to go toward community services such as school, medical, construction, etc. The money in their budget they would have spent for repair and rebuilding is now free. They get to take all their funds and simply shift it to militant use. Thanks to the United States taxpayers and their generous President, they will be killing more Jewish men, women, and children in no time. Courtesy of the red, white, and blue. The phrase “the rocket’s red glare, the bombs bursting in air” will take on a whole new meaning as rockets explode in Israeli neighborhoods once again.
References
(2009). Hamas happy with obamas 900 million dollar pledge. Worldnet Daily, Retrieved 03/07/2009, from
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=89949
(2009). Israeli warning to obama: Your talk gives iran nukes. Newsvine, Retrieved 03/07/2009, from
http://calbarran.newsvine.com/_news/2009/02/19/2454507-israeli-warning-to-obama-your-talk-gives-iran-nukes
(2008). Who are hezbollah?. BBC, Retrieved 03/07/2009, from
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/43
14423.stm
Eberthart, Dave (2008). Terror expert: Wmd attack on u.s. inevitable. Newsmax, Retrieved 03/07/2009, from
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/cetron_terror_attack/2008/09/10/129636.html
By Nick Dial
You know what really irks me about this administration? They have been spending absurd amounts of money on domestic pet projects turning everything into an “emergency” to push the agenda. The fact is, there is a real emergency going on right now. I heard on the news today that 4 soldiers died in Afghanistan. This really infuriates me. I haven’t heard one thing in the past three months about Iraq or Afghanistan by president Obama. He’s too busy engaging his “enemies” like Rush Limbaugh, when the nations REAL enemies are continuing to conspire and kill American troops. They re-label terror as a contingency and terror as “man made disaster”, but have the audacity to call dissenting Americans “political terrorists”, and “extremists”. They say now we are not at war with “Jihadists”, but isn’t Al-Qaeda Jihadists? There are four dead Americans coming home in the next week that may disagree with that statement. They are spending billions on failed social programs, all while cutting funds for the military and failing to dedicate the funds and resources necessary for the troops. I would rather see our troops come home then be subjected to a political game putting them at a disadvantage in the the field. Of course, we can’t do that and it would be very irresponsible.
Gee…Where did we see this before? Ah yes…Vietnam, where the Democrats, JFK and Linden B Johnson, put our troops in a war and then slapped ridiculous and arbitrary restrictions on them such as no fly or bombing zones in the north where all their factories and logistics were located. It was like expecting a boxer to win in the ring on your behalf, but then you tie his hands and say,” Dodge and weave until your opponent tires out – you can win that way.” It wasn’t until Nixon, a republican, was voted into office that the Vietnam war was finally fought as it should have been from the get go. He launched operation Line Backer, and unleashed our full potential on the enemy. Our hands were no longer tied and we were free to give them that much needed uppercut and left hook. Finally, the north was feeling the wrath of the United States and our B-52′s were breaking the backs of the North Vietnamese so badly that Ho Che Min came to the table to have peace talks. Foolishly, we took the deal and millions more died. One North Vietnamese Officer stated ,”the Americans will never know how close they were to crushing us”. In the end, the liberal left had their way and when we left, the killing fields began. Where were the the lefties outcry over that? I thought they were humanitarians?
Now in Afghanistan, the same game is being played. We have nuclear armed Pakistan, a supposed ally, and like Cambodia in the Vietnam conflict, we have these same restrictive rules. The enemy has free reign in Pakistan and continues to attack our troops from their country, yet Pakistan states we cannot pursue the enemy and must respect their sovereignty.It’s time to get serious.Iif we had fought like this during WWII, the Germans and Japanese would have mopped the floor with us – and then some. We need to get our priorities straight. We need to dedicate the funds to the war effort, mass our troops, and go into Pakistan and knock the hell out of the enemy. War is dirty and bloody. When you sit here and play footsie like we did in Vietnam and continue to operate in a box, nothing will be achieved. It only prolongs the fighting and people continue to die in vein. You want health care reform? You want stimulus bills in the trillions with pork attached? Do right by the troops and give them the pork! Give them the “reform”! Finish the job in that region and then we’ll talk about all the other stuff. This is like buying new furniture when your house is burning down.
