home > archive > 2006 > this article

Search this site Search WWW

Ignore the critics, continue the fight

By Carol Devine-Molin
web posted February 13, 2006

When the Congressional Democrats approved the authorization of military force against Iraq, there was no equivocating and no qualifying of their stance with "ifs, ands, or buts". However, that’s changed. We’re now led to believe by Democrat politicos Kerry, Clinton, et al, that they signed-on to a different war in 2002. Yep, they’re griping that they bought one war in Iraq, but got another. But is this a fair criticism?

Frankly, it’s not. The current posturing of the political Left is patently absurd and only demonstrates how little they understand about warfare. War, by its very nature, is unpredictable. An effective military campaign invariably requires close monitoring, flexibility, and ongoing tweaking. As terrorism took hold in Iraq, necessary actions were implemented by coalition forces, including targeting major vipers’ nests and gathering better intelligence from the locals.

There’s no denying that the zeitgeist of this early post 9/11 era will be largely focused upon Iraq . For the troops, it’s been an ongoing battle against murderous thugs engaged in what is alternatively dubbed terrorism, guerrilla warfare, low intensity warfare, asymmetric warfare and even the popular term of the last decade, "fourth generation warfare" that connotes sectarian violence. Clearly, the difficulty posed by warfare can never be underestimated. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld succinctly characterized the situation that our forces are up against as "a long, hard slog." That being said, there’s reason for optimism, with the Iraqi landscape slowly improving for coalition forces and the Iraqi people as well. But you’ll never hear that from the Democrats or the mainstream media. Anti-Bush, anti-war propaganda continues unabated by the Left-leaning crowd.

Moreover, military know-it-all Hillary Clinton – standard bearer of the Democratic Party – insists that we must reject "the administration’s doctrine of preemptive war." What is this woman talking about? It may play in liberal New York, but in the heartland of America, people are shaking their heads. Tactically, preemption has always been part and parcel of warfare. That begs the question: How would she handle the emerging crisis with Iran ? Would Hillary, who fancies herself as the future commander-in-chief, permit a lawless regime to have possession of nuclear weaponry? These are the same Iranian psychopaths that are: a) intent on destroying Israel and the US, and b) refuse to abandon their nuclear ambitions. Diplomatic talks have fallen by the wayside. At this juncture, implementing preemptive action is the only course to ensure the safety of Israel, America, and the West for that matter. Senator Clinton’s failure to grasp the importance of preemption makes her look downright foolish. And this is the woman who lectures her constituents that the war on terror must be fought "smart"? Hillary Clinton is only reinforcing the prevalent notion that Democrats are inherently incapable of administering sound national security policies.

Let’s not forget that the Clinton administration presided over the slashing of our military, consistently utilizing the military as a cash-cow to help cut the budget deficit. As noted by author Rich Lowry in his book Legacy, "The military roughly declined by half in the 1990s, with the Army getting sliced from eighteen divisions to ten and the Air Force from thirty-six fighter wings to twenty (a total of fifteen wings were used just in the first Gulf War). Whenever the Clinton administration bragged about reducing the deficit or the federal workforce, it was effectively talking about how it had cut the military". When President Bush came into office, months before 9/11, he inherited a terribly reduced military with significant morale problems because of the Clinton gang. It would be fair to say that Hillary, Bill’s ostensible co-president, has little credibility as a "centrist" and military supporter.

Vice President Dick Cheney underscores it’s "more than just luck" that we haven’t been hit by al-Qaida or any of its affiliate groups since 9/11. This makes perfect sense, given terrorists’ propensity to exploit vulnerabilities. Targets were systematically strengthened on American soil after 9/11, requiring al-Qaida to seek targets elsewhere in the world. Since 9/11, the following nations have been subjected to al-Qaida terror attacks: Tunisia, Pakistan, Turkey, Indonesia, Kenya, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Spain, England and Jordan . According to Cheney, "decisive action" by the military, law enforcement, intelligence and homeland security have certainly contributed to our national protection. Moreover, the Bush administration has divulged that al-Qaida strikes have been successfully thwarted in the US ( Los Angeles specifically cited).

Reliable intelligence is key to halting terrorist activities. With this in mind, the NSA has been monitoring suspected al-Qaida operatives or affiliates, who place calls to or from America . This is not "domestic surveillance", as the mainstream media is apt to label it. Thankfully, most Americans understand that the US is monitoring its enemies during wartime, and view the activity as perfectly acceptable.

Carol Devine-Molin is a regular contributor to several online magazines.

Send a link to this page!
Send a link to this story

Send a link to this page!

Get weekly updates about new issues of ESR!



1996-2020, Enter Stage Right and/or its creators. All rights reserved.