Is America winning The War On Terrorism?
By Sam Weaver (03/29/04)
One year after the U. S. invasion of Iraq, and 2-1/2 years after 9/11/01, it is much too soon to ask whether or not America is winning the War on Terrorism.
Reflect profoundly for just one moment on that day when the Twin Towers fell; when our Pentagon was struck and when heroes died in a Pennsylvania field. Following the initial confusion, shock, grief, outrage, anger and every other conceivable emotion that such a horrendous attack could bring to bear, we became a unified nation.
Many around the globe listened with awe on September 20, 2001, as President Bush addressed a Joint Session of Congress and enunciated the Bush Doctrine. [See http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html] “…the only way to defeat terrorism as a threat to our way of life is to stop it, eliminate it, and destroy it where it grows.” “…we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.” I don’t recall anyone at the time making a case against any part of the Bush Doctrine. It would have been political suicide to do so.
Less than a year and a half later, before the invasion of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq even began, the naysayers, pundits and power-mad politicians began decrying it. “This action does not have the full support of our friends and allies.” “It is a diversion from the ‘real war’ against al-Qaeda.” “It is based on ‘intentionally misleading’ intelligence concerning WMD.” And on and on….
Neglecting facts (e.g. direct payments by Saddam Hussein to families of suicide terrorist bombers against Israeli non-combatants, Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, Ramzi Yousef, Ansar al-Islam, Salman Pak, etc., etc.), certain pundits and politicians began to drive a wedge through the very heart of American unity. Perhaps the most neglected, yet by far the most important fact remains that the invasion of Iraq was totally justified by Saddam’s repeated violations of the cease-fire agreement of 1991 and of many U. N. resolutions! By defaming President Bush’s “ill-conceived”, “pre-planned”, “unilateral”, “adventurous” and “misleading” war on Iraq, these pundits and politicians have not only threatened American unity, they have imperiled America’s resolve in the comprehensive War on Terrorism.
Speaking of neglected facts: Bill Clinton and his people had two Administrations and eight years to transition both the intelligence and the defense communities from a Cold War mode to a force capable of dealing with the emerging (and rather obvious) threat of global terrorism. Ramzi Yousef’s [an Iraqi national and a member of al-Qaeda!] coordinated attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 should have been at least the first clue. Black Hawk down in Somalia, the bombings of the Khobar Towers and of the American Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the assault on the U. S. S. Cole should have been just a few of the many huge slaps in the face!
Sadly, in those extremely critical years between the fall of the Soviet Union and the rise of radical “Islamist” terrorism, America had a Commander-In Chief who was much more preoccupied with domestic affairs [In more ways than one!] than with national security. Bill Clinton was apparently quite immune to slaps in the face; and he was very adept at quashing them like just some other “bimbo eruption”.
Those extremely critical years between 1992 and 2000 should have been dedicated to revamping America’s intelligence community from one that dealt with the old Soviet Union to one that focused on Islamo-terrorism. The military should have undergone a similar transition. Instead, both the intelligence and the defense establishments basically retained the Cold War philosophy/mentality (with an emphasis since the mid 1970’s on technology at the expense of human intel), and both were eviscerated so as to reap the perceived “peace dividends” resulting from the collapse of the Evil Empire. Is it any wonder that we enjoyed surpluses during the 1990’s?
During this current flap over former “Terrorism Czar”, Richard Clarke’s, testimony before the 9/11 Commission, I’ve heard several Bush supporters eloquently state the case that Clinton had eight years to deal with terrorism, and that Bush had only eight months. However, I have not heard anyone anywhere make the following points:
The Bush Administration’s transition team was delayed by some two to three months by lawsuits and counter-suits brought in the aftermath of the 2000 election. If terrorism were such a high priority at the time in the out-going Clinton Administration, as Richard Clarke seems to suggest, then why didn’t someone—anyone!—call for Al Gore to cease and desist?! Where was Richard Clarke or any other Clinton Administration official warning that a rapid, smooth, cordial, and informative transition was infinitely more important than a petty, prolonged election-result dispute! Surely someone should have clamored for a microphone or a video camera to make this case, if terrorism had been such an obvious threat!
Truth is, there was no such clamor. Why not? Why didn’t even one Clinton Administration official make this case? Should there be an investigation? Or is this just an indication of where Democrat Party priorities lie?
Is America winning the War on Terrorism? Again, it is far too soon to say. But, for a quick glimpse of the current status, just ask the average Afghani or the average Iraqi citizen. Ask Muammar Gaddafi! Consider the fact that some 63% of all known al-Qaeda leadership has been killed or captured. Recent polls in Iraq indicate that the Iraqi people are more optimistic about their own future than Americans are about theirs! That says more about Americans than it does about Iraqis.
Far too many Americans have either taken liberty for granted, or have totally misunderstood the concept of liberty. Iraqis are grasping this very concept for the first time in their lives. The world as a whole is on the outside looking in. The world at-large sees freedom through the opaque lens of relativism and license. Sadly, way too many Americans view “liberty” through this same distorted lens.
The War on Terrorism will be a very long war. It can and will not be won unless true liberty wins. It will be lost if relativism is the strategy and appeasement becomes a tactic. The civilized world will lose the War on Terrorism if we Americans lose our resolve and bow to the relativistic strategy and the appeasement mentality of the global peaceniks of the U. N. and the Democratic Party of the U. S.
The Cold War was a struggle between godless communism and the American Ideal of individual liberty. The American Ideal emerged the victor in that conflict. The War on Terrorism is a battle between radical, Islamist extremists and the American Ideal. Defeating this Islamo-fascist fringe will be no insurmountable task as long as lovers of liberty stay focused and resolved.
When we, the People of the United States of America, let naysayers, pundits, politicians, relativists and modern liberals destroy our unity, our focus and our resolve, we will lose the War on Terrorism. We must remain united and resolved! We must understand and stay focused on the true meaning of liberty as it is defined in the Declaration of Independence. Apathy, ignorance and indifference are liberty’s greatest foes!
If a decade from now, Americans are not taking liberty for granted; if they are as resolved to win the War on Terrorism as they were in the days immediately following 9/11/01, then it can be said that victory in this war is within reach. Otherwise, Generations X, Y and Z just may very well be guilty of squandering the greatest culture that God ever gave to man: a society of true liberty known at one time long ago as the Good Old U. S. of A.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Sam Weaver
