Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Michael McBride :: Townhall.com Columnist
Defining the Global War on Terror
by Michael McBride
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Wars have always had their discernable differences. Some extremely nuanced, some extremely dramatic. Strategists have been able to draw on tactics and strategies from previous wars or engagements and adapt them to modern principles and equipment. Other wars have demanded radically new or deeply evolved strategies and tactics to overcome or leverage operational developments and tactical and strategic shifts.

Had the Allies not perfected the complex, integrated tactics of amphibious warfare, first attempted in the modern age at Gallipoli in World War One, they would have not been successful moving across North Africa, Italy, Europe, and the entirety of Asia in defeating the Axis powers in World War Two.

Carrier warfare was birthed, developed, mastered and integrated into our national strategic plans in less than twenty years. It changed the face of naval warfare forever.

In its simplest form, World War Two was an engagement on two foreign fronts, a modest defense of the homeland, sustaining of supply and logistics lines, and propaganda (support) effort at home. Fought successfully on all five above fronts, the Allies could be expected to defeat the Axis and claim victory.

The Cold War was fought remarkably different. It was fought with weapons development, brinksmanship, and propaganda, occupation of territory, political alignment, time, and economics. In the end, the winning of the Cold War ended up being a strategy of containment, economic depletion over an extended period, and the capability to project a ready and competent response to attack.

It is critical to outline the broad fronts in the Global War on Terrorism in order to lay out a competent, long-term strategy for victory. The fronts that we must engage on, and win on, in order succeed against terror are as follows…

Iraq

The war in Iraq must be sustained until either Al Qaeda is defeated, they abandon the battlefield in Iraq, or the combination of Iraqi armed forces and Iraqi police forces can provide stability in the country, from both internal and external pressures. Al Qaeda cannot be “given” a victory in this battle. They will not go home if they successfully force our withdrawal and claim victory in Iraq. They will simply test our strength and our will in another spot on the globe, using any uncontrolled areas in Iraq as training grounds.

Afghanistan

The effort in Afghanistan must be continued until the Taliban is no longer militarily or politically viable in Afghanistan. As with Al Qaeda in Iraq, the Taliban must be denied even the smallest influence in Afghanistan. The remnants are a nuisance, and they occasionally enjoy some success on the battlefield, but we have already experienced life under the threat of a terror enhancing regime in control in Kabul. Terrorists would have unrestricted access to training and support, and economic viability via the opium trade.

Forces must remain in place which promote long term stability, and a denial of a resurgence to the Taliban.

Iran

Iran must be denied the acquisition of nuclear arms at all costs. We know that the mullahs, via Ahmadinejad are incapable of rational, international intercourse, and that their objective is to enhance their status in the world through the successful development of nuclear arms.

They have proven themselves exasperatingly irrational over the past twenty-eight years, and in adding a nuclear capability to their arsenal, they would only attempt to twist the rest of the world to their influence through an unspoken, yet inherent threat to use nuclear weapons in order to achieve their political objectives.

Iran is the main backer to Hezbollah, and their myriad of terror activities, it is a logical step for Iran to let aggressive, semi-rogue terror groups to do their nuclear bidding for them. Certainly, Iran would arm their surrogates with nuclear weapons, and then the world would become a free-fire zone for nuclear detonations.

Border protection/immigration enforcement

The US must aggressively pursue coherent and responsible immigration and deportation strategies that add to national security. Borders MUST be controlled to the extent that we know, for certain, who is in this country and under what pretenses. We cannot protect ourselves against Al Qaeda mimickers, if we do not have a rational understanding of who is in this country and for what purpose. This requires a serious and immediate action. Failing to plug this gaping hole in our national defense is a symbol for our collective malaise toward our own security and will make us vulnerable into perpetuity should we fail to take appropriate action…control the borders, enforce current laws, deport immigration rules violators without exception, aggressively pursue those here illegally.

Passenger/cargo screening

Continue with aggressive domestic and international screening of airline passengers. Through diligent and continued screening we re-enforce the idea that we have not forgotten 9/11, and that we are aware enough to continue to provide some measure of security to intra- and international travel.

We must aggressively step up our screening of cargo containers entering into this country. We must have an understanding of what is in each and every container that comes through our borders. Certainly this will take some time to fully make operational, but we must continue on the path and complete this critical piece in the continuity of our effort to protect ourselves from further attack.

Engage moderate Muslims

We must begin to develop a much improved working relationship with moderate Muslims. Because of the violent nature of Islamic terrorists across the globe, it is easy to understand the reluctance of some moderate Muslims to step forward and support governmental initiatives in the anti-terror campaign. We must be able to ensure the physical security of moderate Muslims who assist us in our goal to eliminate terrorism.

We need to work with moderates to gain access to networks that harbor or fuel insurgents. We must cultivate them for long term roles as operatives, analysts and interpreters. In short, we must engage moderate Muslims in our effort to eliminate terror, and be prepared to take extraordinary measures to ensure their physical security. The combination of cooperation and protection will begin to break down the existing barriers that are keeping moderate Muslims on the sidelines.

Strengthen domestic surveillance and security initiatives

Key elements of the Patriot Act must remain in place in order to ensure that our domestic terror prevention efforts shift away form the “lucky” and are driven into programmatic success. By limiting access to banking, billing, internet, cell phone records, and other predominate terror pathways of communication and exchange, we hamstring our efforts, and reduce our chances of programmatic success, and shift back to a dependence on luck or fortune.

We will not always be presented with fidgety drivers crossing over from Canada, or copy-cat cells stupid enough to take their training videos to Circuit City for conversion to DVD. At some point the strength of our domestic counter-terror programs must be unearthing these plots, and we must diminish our dependence on stupid terrorists and heads-up store clerks.

Citizen awareness/involvement

We must actively begin a communication program that highlights how important citizen involvement has been in protecting us from further attacks. A concentrated media campaign should be a base element of our public information dissemination well out into the future. This campaign, should resemble the Civil Defense ads of the fifties, and alert our citizens to the very real threats that are beginning to infiltrate our neighborhoods, as these “home-grown” Al Qaeda-like cells begin to gain a toehold on our home turf.

Counter Information operations

We must deny any terror organization the initiative in Information Operations. We must recognize that their objective is to operate inside our information OODA-loop and to co-opt our media outlets. They will continue to leverage the format and content of the evening news to gain air time and to present the images they want to the American public.

We must be aggressive in countering these messages, and devise a coherent and innovative strategy to deny them the unfettered use of our airwaves in this critical element of the GWOT.

Political agreement to these principles

None of the above will work, until there is a bi-partisan agreement to this approach in fighting the GWOT. Each and every time we waver in our effort, the enemy views our divisiveness as an offensive opportunity.

Al Zawahiri is giddy in Iraq at the possibility of the Dems setting a timeline. They operate more freely when we relax our surveillance of bank transactions or incoming cell phone calls. Until both parties can agree to this list as the fronts of this war, we will have no chance of winning it…no matter how much money we spend, or how much energy we expend.

The GWOT is mature enough that a strategic review of our methods and objective is called for. And while this list may not prove to be all inclusive, it is certainly the baseline for achieving success in the long term.

If we can’t figure out, or acknowledge on which fronts we are fighting, we are doomed to be engaged in a long, losing struggle to terror. If we are able to put together a comprehensive fight on all of the fronts described above, we are in for a long, winning struggle against terror.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Michael E. McBride retired as a Major from the Marine Corps and blogs at http://www.mysandmen.blogspot.com.

Be the first to read Michael McBride's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

A concrete plan
Though I don't agree with all the particulars of Mr. McGrides theories and plans, he has a plan.

What about our President?

caelestis
I honestly don't think our prez has a plan. He's left our borders widewide open and the illegals keep flooding through and no one tries to stop them. I think he's gone blind to the wants and needs of the citizensor has gone to sleep. He needs to wakeup andconsider what his legacy will be. If those terrorists had hit Ft. Dix, his legacy would have been the first american in60yrs to let an enemy hit an active army base in the U.S. God help this man to get a clue as to what is going on around here Amen

Okay
McBride put much of our situation into a nutshell.

Who is going to solve the problems?

I can't say I can even name someone because the USA has become a nation ruled by politicians.

Not Statesmen.
Not warriors.
Not Heros.
Not even visionaries.

Not since Ronald Reagan.

I'm hoping Fred Thompson has the same properties, that he will run, and that he will succeed.

The present crop offered up, by either side, is just plain, plain or incompetent at best. IMHO

The First Thing
to do in defining it is to call it what it is:

A war against ISLAMIC FASCISM!

Calling it the war against terror would be like calling the war against Japan in WWII,"The war against sneak attacks"

Neo-Jacobins

Gabby makes the claim that everybody that resembles Bush or roots for Bush or is pro-war is a Neo-Jacobin. He even posted some links on Diana West's column at http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DianaWest/2007/04/28/the_limited_war_for_hearts_and_minds?page=full&comments=true

I looked them up. One Link stated: "Jacobins were the 18th century French revolutionaries whose intention to remake Europe in revolutionary France’s image launched the Napoleonic Wars."

So I asked Gabby the question, "Does going to war make one a Jacobin?" He never answered.

See, my problem is this, if we say Bush & Co. are Neo-Jacobins then we have to say FDR and HST were even more so. after all, when the shooting stopped we installed demcracies in Germany and Japan. We would have to claim that any attempt at self defense is an act of a Jacobin. I ain't buying that.

Another link stated, "The root of the Middle Eastern problem is Israel’s uncanny ability to manipulate American public opinion and US foreign policy. This unique power means Israel doesn’t have to compromise. Instead, the Israelis escalate and involve us ever more deeply and one-sidedly in their disputes with Arabs."

Gabby can believe anything he wants. It is my belief that the root problem in the ME is that the Arabs want to annihilate Israel and Israel is refusing to go gently into the night. America can leave Israel to do battle at 100 to 1 odds knowing that Israel will ultimately have to use what ever weapons are at hand (nukes anybody?), or America can support an ally and friend to the hilt and keep the Arabs at bay.

Aside from the fact that Israel agreed to over 90% of Arafat's demands (at which time Arafat broke off talks and walked away from the peace table) Israel is seen as uncompromising. Apparently, the only way Israel can prove that she is compromising is kneel down before the Arabs and present the back of their necks. Self defense is not acceptable to the likes of Gabby.

Another link has this for a headline, "Too Much TV Gives You Invasions, Bankruptcy And The Draft"

The only party I know of that is calling for the draft is the Democrats. They must be Neo-Jacobins because the draft builds up the armed forces which leads to war which leads to nation building, which means Neo-Jacobins. But Gabby can only see Neo-Jacobins in the Bush Administration even though Bush is anti-draft.

Try this one, "The Jacobin agenda requires large numbers of American troops and heavy taxation to support massive military budgets."

Again, the party has stated its intentions to increase taxes is the Democrats. According to Gabby's links this means that the Democrats are the party of the Neo-Jacobins.

It is time for the crowd screaming 'Neo-Jacobins' to better define their case.

Put up or shut up. Find a new argument.

FreeOpter
>A war against ISLAMIC FASCISM!<

That's just a popular soundbite that has no real meaning For instance, in Syria as well as Egypt, did you know that the Muslim Brotherhood is outlawed?

Is Ilham Aliyev an Islamic fascist? Do you know who he is? Do you know we support him because of oil politics despite his fascist governing menthods? What about the Saudi royals? Do they fall into your generic description of Islamic fascists? Mubarak? Pervez? We give billions to those dictators who rule by military decree, which is a basic tenet of fascism.

You can call it whatever you want to call it. But that's not what it is.


McBride is thinking correctly...
But, the War on Terror will not be won as long
as Pelosi and Reid see political opportunity for their party and themselves by playing to the notion
that Americans demand instant results and you make poliitcal hay when such is not achieved.

Therefore,we an expect another year of Congress ignoring the risks to the U.S. unless a new leader can emerge that clearly energizes public opinion to get Congress to act to:
1. Control our borders and monitor all illegals whe deserve a way to stay and be taxed, and monitored; while letting additional workers, if needed, come through gates to meet their employers and get their embedded monitoring technology installed.

2. Recognize that foreign aid to help Iraq's coalition government discover that it can fairly treat all major minorities.

3. Give support to the notion that Iran can not be allowed to flaunt the UN and build WMD for export to terrorists to promote Islam by intimidation- the only successful technique used to build the original Saudi Arabia success of Mohammed and spread it now globablly.

4. Accept the notion that religion is not going to vanish in favor of a secular theology that kills Christianity while Islam is given a pass.

5. Make sure that the deal with N.Korea works far better than the one Jimmy Carter thought he could broker with an honest opponent. Communists, like Islamic radicals do not agree unless it is for a short term while a better advantage develops.

I pray for that leader to emerge to make it happen no matter what party he or she represents.

Gene:
Well put. Two of McBride's goals- staying in Iraq and Afghanistan are hampering another- engaging moderate Muslims. As long as we have troops in the ME the moderates won't speak up.

General Batiste is right
What's missing in the GWOT are the non-military components.

The war was won in Iraq years ago. It is the occupation and the building of the Iraq government that is failing.

The failure requires the committments Batiste layed out:

1.) Economic
2.) Political
3.) Diplomatic

Bush thinks the occupation can succeed without strong economic, political and diplomatic components. We've seen military heroism. We've seen no such diplomatic or political heroism other than the Iraqi people themselves getting out to vote.


Batiste is right. There is only so much cooperation that can be hand at gun's end.

Unless we plan to occupy Iraq indefinitely we need these other components.

Finally, all wars have a domestic component as well. An unpopular war at home cannot survive elections as we saw in 2006. Bush has been an abysmal failure in making the case for the GWOT with the American people. He has dug a hole of negativity that will be difficult to dig out of.


duh, I thought neo-jacobins
were in favor of a new King James in the court of St. James.

News Vs. Information
In my blog today, I try to be very precise in defining what the "problem with the MSM" actually is. Yes, part of it is liberal bias. But the main issue is its increasingly incoherent presentation of news. It presents more and more "news" (factoids, fragments) and less and less "information," news within a context that would make it actionable. The responses of the viewing/listening audiences are fear and loathing, mainly fear. Somehow, everything gets presented as beyond our control. I hope people will come and join the debate, which you can do by clicking on my name above. Leave your comments, and I'll reply.

The AMERO discussed on CNBC
Well, here's some information for you.

The Amero - North American Currency
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hiPrsc9g98

eastlake joe
You wrote: "I honestly don't think our prez has a plan... If those terrorists had hit Ft. Dix, his legacy would have been the first american in60yrs to let an enemy hit an active army base in the U.S. God help this man to get a clue as to what is going on around here"

I guess you didn't notice that we actually CAUGHT those guys who were going to attack Ft. Dix, BEFORE they managed it.

Do you think that happened by accident?

Or might it, in fact, be the case that those terrorists were caught because the government DOES have a clue?

This is as opposed to the administration before the Bush administration, during which the Murrah Building was destroyed and the World Trade Center attacked twice, successfully...

Correction...
...the 2nd WTC attack occurred during the Bush Presidency. It was PLANNED and STAFFED during the previous admin. My analysis stands unchanged.

eastlake joe
e.j. posted, "his legacy would have been the first american in60yrs to let an enemy hit an active army base in the U.S."


Actually, he didn't "let them hit" Ft. Dix. That's the point you simply can't understand. The Bush administration STOPPED the terrorists. That may be way too intellectual for people like you to understand.

So will Clinton's legacy be "first pres in 60 years to let an enemy attack a US warship?" or " . . . the WTC" or "blow up US embassies" or " . . .be impeached for committing perjury"?


What is YOUR plan, limpbrain? Whine and cry and stomp your feet until the terrorists go away?

In defense of the President
I could do the easy thing here and join the near unanimous condemnation of the President. Beating up on Bush seems to be everyone's favorate passtime lately. To be sure, he's done a lot of things I disagree with, specifically regarding immigration (calling the minute-men "vigilanties" was just plain stupid). He also has the problem of not being able to articulate everything he says very well. However, part of that problem may be that whatever he has ever said about anything has been attacked by liberals, like-minded democrats, and the media. McBride makes the point that a bi-partisan approach is what's necessary, and while that's true it is unlikely that this bunch in Washington will ever see the light.
Imagine how much different this whole thing could have been if the LEFT would have been on America's side. The terrorists can not defeat our soldiers on the battlefield, they can only win via the media, and since the media is more interested in defeating Bush then they are defeating terrorists, they readily comply. Yeah Bush may not have made the best decisions but it has got to be hard to make the best decisions when you are fighting a war against a determined enemy and many in your own country are doing everything they can to undermine the effort.
Republicans are more afraid of the media and their own shadows than they are the enemy. The democrats don't even recognize an enemy except Bush and conservatives. At the end of the day it is the President who stands alone, and even if everything doesn't go perfectly, he's at least attempting to defend the country.

War Czar!
Michael, you want the job? God knows we could use you. Intelligent comments on the problems facing this country. Well said!

Can we at least get your ariticle printed in every newspaper in the country? The L.A. Times and the N.Y. Times first. Could they run it on the page one in bold letters? It's a pipe dream, I know.

Brilliant piece of writing!

On behalf of countless Americans, THANKS.


Ideas worth considering from McBride
Thank you, Michael McBride, for actually laying out some serious ideas. I actually decided to read this piece only after I scrolled down to find out that you were former military. About the only people I find these days that have serious thoughts about our necessary efforts to combat Islamic extremism are either wearing our nation’s uniform or have worn it in the past. Had we started listening to people like this after 9/11, we would find ourselves in a much better place today.

One major reason we are having such a difficult time in this country with coming to agreement on how to confront the challenge of radical Islamists is that most Americans don’t understand the enemy, either who they are and how they operate. Instead, they try to superimpose their own contexts on them and it hurts our efforts. A good example of this is the frequent rhetoric on these posts about needing to “take the gloves off,” change our rules of engagement in Iraq and adopt a more muscular military response. In short, they want to fight the kind of war America is good at, a red vs. blue, force-on-force war where we have no equal. Unfortunately, that kind of war is counterproductive in fighting an insurgency and leads to the kind of consequences we are seeing each day in Iraq. You can flatten a city and terrorists, with no logistical tails, will rise from the rubble the next day. And along with them, you will find that any civilian survivors have also become instantly converted to terrorists as well.

Another frequent mistake I read here is conflating this counter-terrorism effort with World War II or some similar challenge against a rival nation-state with armies, an economy and other accoutrements of power. Al Qaeda is a dangerous enemy, but it isn’t anything like fighting the German Wehrmacht, Rommel’s Panzer divisions or the proxy wars we had with the Soviet Union. Whenever people use this kind of rhetoric, they betray their own lack of understanding and usually recommend precisely the wrong conclusions of how we can proceed effectively.

Above all else, we have to understand that our effort to combat radical Islamists, if it is a war, is a war of ideas. We also have to be confident that our ideas are vastly superior, since radical Islam offers nothing more in this world than a return to the 7th century. Although this has slightly more appeal in the Muslim world than it does to Americans, most Muslims reject it as well. But to the extent that we allow it to become a war against Islam, or allow extremist groups to portray it as such, we literally help the extremists recruit millions of new fighters and potential terrorists to their cause.

Although I disagree with some of what McBride is saying, particularly regarding the current deteriorating political situation in Iraq, his overall approach is one that is gaining many knowledgeable adherents in our military and foreign policy circles, including Gen. David Petraeus. What McBride is describing is a global counter-insurgency. If you read his ideas carefully, you will find that he does not recommend warfare as a preferred method of offensive operations except in those places where we are currently engaged in it. Warfare, in most cases, is the least effective way of conducting a counter-insurgency. When circumstances require it, force has to be used judiciously so as to minimize collateral damage to civilian populations.

Think of it like being a fireman. The goal of most fire departments is to do a good enough job of fire education and prevention that they have few fires to fight. When one does break out, they will fight it vigorously, prevent it from spreading and put it out as quickly as possible so as to minimize damage to other property. But each fire represents a failure of fire prevention. In much the same way, military action represents a failure of counter-insurgency. We sometimes have to do it, but it is much better to work so that we don’t have to.

And Gene Touchet, I agree with your thoughts on that silly line about al-Zawahiri's giddiness. I bet you dollars to doughnuts that it was either edited or inserted by someone at TH who could not stand the thought of an entire column that didn't take a potshot at Democrats. It is completely out of character with the rest of McBride's serious analysis. Unless, of course, he has a direct pipeline to al-Zawahiri, maybe a weekly conference call where he can ascertain whether Ayman is giddy, grave, glum or just calmly listening to Broadway show tunes on his MP3 player.

War Czar??
What the heck are we doing with a "War CZAR"??? We're sounding more and more like the USSA (United Soviet States of America).

Talking points and reality
"The war in Iraq must be sustained until either Al Qaeda is defeated..." -- This is wrong in so many ways.

* There are two organizations called Al Qaeda. One is run by Osama BinLaden. This is the one that attacked America in 2001. The other is a group fighting in Iraq. They admire Bin Laden but do not work for him. Taking out AQ in Iraq (as they call themselves), does not distroy the true AQ.

* AQ in Iraq is responible for a small fraction of the violence in Iraq. Take them out and Iraq would be about the same mess it is now. In fact, it looks like AQ in Iraq is about to be defeated because even Iraqis don't like them.

Impossible
>The effort in Afghanistan must be continued until the Taliban is no longer militarily or politically viable in Afghanistan. As with Al Qaeda in Iraq, the Taliban must be denied even the smallest influence in Afghanistan.<

There are no analogies to be drawn between the Afghani Taliban and Al Qaeda in Iraq. Like it or not, the Taliban has social, political and religious structure with indigenous Afghanis developed over decades.

Al Qaeda in Iraq has no social or political base within Iraq, and only a small group that might be in line with their religious ideology.
In support of Ken in TN's excellent post above, Al Qaeda in Iraq gained more supporters from the leveling of Fallujah than any other event. That is evident by examining the current situation in Anbar, where the larger city and capital, Ramadi, is relatively peaceful and secure, while Fallujah remains a hotbed of terrorist activity and insurgency.

LGM
The point you raise is one of two places where I do disagree with McBride's analysis. But although everything you say is true about al Qaeda in Iraq, they are a catalyst for a lot more violence than they perpetrate themselves. Their signature attacks are usually those designed to inflame violence between Shiite and Sunni factions, starting the endless cycle of tribal retaliation and revenge that characterizes much of this conflict.

But you cut off McBride's quote before you got around to his much more likely alternative. That is his endgame where "the combination of Iraqi armed forces and Iraqi police forces can provide stability." When this happens, and when the Iraqi security forces feel sufficiently confident and well-armed, then we can leave. And that's when the real civil war begins.

I think there is an inevitability about this, whether we leave today, tomorrow or 10 years from now. The Shiite-majority government is just biding its time now, allowing us to do as much of their dirty work as possible. It has become very clear to anyone closely watching the political situation unfold that there is no movement toward national reconciliation, no efffort to reach political solutions or compromises. Once we step aside, the Shiites will commence their ethnic cleansing, making short work of al Qaeda in Iraq and probably untold other innocent Sunnis.

Seen in this context, the Iraqi parliament's move this week toward asking for a phased withdrawal of American troops (as well as a troop cap now) is much more understandable. The resolution was signed by a majority of Iraqi members of parliament, not because they have all become American Democrats, but because they have no need for American troops to stand in the way of their "final solution" to this conflict once they are strong enough to do it. The move for this resolution was led by Moqtada al Sadr's faction, which should be a further clue to its motivation.

That actually is the other place where I disagree with McBride's analysis on Iraq. Like most in America, he continues to couch this conflict in American terms, American interests and an American "victory" or "defeat," as if there was still some military victory we could bring home for our national trophy case. What he doesn't understand -- or doesn't make clear if he does -- is that our ability to influence events there is practically gone. The key has always been persuading the Iraqi people that it is in their interest to reach peaceful solutions to their political and sectarian problems. If we ever had that opportunity, we probably let it slip away over the past three years. Their positions have obviously hardened now and the Shiites are simply biding their time for our withdrawal, now or in the future. Then it is going to get ugly.

HankRearden
I beg to differ. Leadership is the ability to manage the challenges and negativity thrown your way. Our President doesn't do that very well. Leadership is communicating your vision in a way that others are willing to try. Our President doesn't do that very well.

Our President just isn't a good leader.

Excellent column...
...by Michael McBride. To his list, I would add one more vital component: impose a zero-tolerance policy towards those who leak classified intelligence secrets.

Since this enemy operates underground, surveillance is imperative in preventing attacks. In recent years, some treasonous scum within the intelligence community leaked highly classified secrets to the NY Times regarding the FISA and SWIFT programs. By disclosing the mechanics of how those programs worked, the NY Times turned itself into a "How To Avoid Detection" manual for terrorists, virtually assuring that mass civilian casualties will occur on our soil. And they did this for purely partisan reasons.

To the last person, the leakers and the publishers of these secrets should have been rooted out, tried, convicted, and imprisoned for life -- or hung.

Preferably the latter.

Eastlake Joe
This is in reference to the article yesterday when we were discussing men vs.woman.We were talking about jobs thet woman could do but man couldn't and you said she could have a baby.That my friend is not a job that is a labor of love.To bad you don't know the difference

This is not a problem of the last few de
Cowboy writes: Bombs, Bullets and B.S. are not the solution to this problem. The "FREE WORLD" needs to determine the underlying cause of their beliefs and develop ways to counter their beliefs regarding the US and other FREE Nations.

The underlying cause is simple -- The Koran Or Quran. Different spellings, same meaning.

As for Islam and the United States, our problems with Islam began well before Thoms Jefferson became president. Appeasement and mollification failed miserable, only emboldening those we would call terrorists today. When Jefferson became POTUS he sent the Marines in and began the alleviate the immediate problems. (That's where the line "to the shores of Tripoli" comes from in the Marine Corps Hymn.

Years later the problems erupted again in the Phillipines and our forces were able to quiet the problem. (Look up Blackjack Pershing -- even though there are a lot of legends attached to his history.)

Things changed radically with the discovery of oil and the availability of real wealth to much of the Arab/Islamic world surfaced.

Another significant factor was the rapid growth of intercontinental travel. Even with today's so-called security restrictions, it's no big deal to fly almost anywhere in the world.

Point being, the fight against Islamic Fascism is not going to be won quickly. They are committed to the destruction of all that does not conform to their beliefs. Certainly the Islamic world made significant contributions to science and math under the Caliphate, but that hasn't been a reality for 1,000 years.

We mut accept the reality that the risk exists and commit to alleviate it or, if possible, eliminate it. But it takes a hard-nosed appreciation of reality and not a wishy-washy approach of finding out why they hate us.

By the way Mr. McBride - From my late father, a retired Marine Sgt. Major, Semper Fi!

Inkling revival& david mac
I don't Know, maybe you guys were listening to a different news source. The one I heard said , between the lines of course, that STUPIDITY caught these guys and homeland was lucky it did!

union dude
It was a joke guy too bad you don't know the difference.

al-Qaeda in Iraq
They don't have to be a "huge" force. They can blow up Sunni with a Shiite faction they help and blow up Shiites with Sunni faction they support and it does the job for them. They get both sides fighting each other and working toward getting Americans to bring the troops home.

Then with us gone, they destroy the oil supplies like they are trying to do and are doing in other nations to hurt the U.S. economically.

Al-Qaeda has moved from "attacks" like 9-11 to attacks on oil supplies and in this case, on a new government using the two main religious groups as pawns.

If Iran gets it, they will sell the oil in euros which will cause our currency to decline even more or collapse. The euro has already risen 60% to the dollar and much of that due to euros being used for oil purchases making them more popular and the dollar less popular. Since demand for the dollar is all that gives it value, it is no wonder it has lost so much value.

People who think of fighting al-Qaeda as a military war, are missing what they have switched to as a weapon. They have switched to oil and the value of the dollar to attack us. Even if Iran wins, al-Qaeda can leave Iraq victorious because Iran will sell oil in euros.

Meantime, al-Qaeda will continue to hit Nigeria, Sudan and other places to keep oil prices high with political and supply uncertainties. And we will continue to pay at the pump.

Addendum to inkling & david
One part of this article talks about the inspection of passengers and cargo. How do we screen some one who has been exposed to say plague culture within the last ,ohsay 36 hrs? Do you know the ramifications of this senario? He gets on a plane, comes in contact with everyone on it, they come in contact with all the people they meet, and so on. Don't laugh Since the downfall of the soviets those vials could be and most likely are out there. Especially with the russians thirst for money. They are willing to sell personell neuclear devices for the right amount. But don't worry one of these days it will turn around and bite them right in the a$$.

Defining the Global War on Terror
Excellent very objective

Needed: Better Commenters
My general comment on comments: One commenter recently said that I was wrong to support Giuliani (the only Republican who can win) because he was a "socialist." Frankly, someone who calls a lifelong Republican and an American hero a socialist is beyond assistance. Such a person has a right to express himself, but nothing he says will be of any value. Merely reciting right-wing slogans to one's fellow conservatives accomplishes zero. Blowing hot air is not a political action. If you have a problem with Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi or Rudy Giuliani or Newt Gingrich, say what it is -- and what you and others intend to do about it. If you plan to do nothing but write comments, then realize your total futility as a human being. Complaints alone are not enough. Will you contribute money to campaigns? Will you stuff envelopes? Or knock on doors? Or make calls? If not, you might be a conservative, but you're more part of the problem than the solution.

steve
TalkTop65@aol.com

Mis-characterization
"The Cold War was fought remarkably different. It was fought with weapons development, brinksmanship, and propaganda, occupation of territory, political alignment, time, and economics. In the end, the winning of the Cold War ended up being a strategy of containment, economic depletion over an extended period, and the capability to project a ready and competent response to attack."

Well while this may be factually correct, I think it mischaracterizes The Cold 'War' as a power struggle when in fact it was an ideological battle. What happened in VietNam was a physical war against Communists for the power and dominion which was part of a larger battle over ideology (Communism/socialism versus Democracy/capitalism). The winning of the Cold War itself did not involve a regime change or a change of land ownership.

If you agree that the war against radical Islam (including the corruption, oppression, and brutality that is at odds with the liberty and capitalism that democracy requires) is largely an ideological battle as well as an economic one then I don't see any basis for asserting that the solution is one of might makes right. It's an opinion, but I don't think it's a winning solution . . . that's jmo though . . .

Gabby

All I did was to refer to the links you provided to support your hypothesis. I figured they would clarify your position. After all that is why you presented them isn't it?

The lastest statement in your hypothesis is that Fred Thompson is a Neo-Jacobin and a member of the CFR. Since you did not supply links for that statement, I googled 'Fred Thompson CFR'. I found many threads where people said the same thing you said. What I did not find was any links to any news source, politician, or any other hard evidence to bolster your stated opinion.

From what I understand of the original Jacobins, they were attempting to build a new French empire across Europe. Their method was NOT a war of immigration using immigrants. They were not being subtle. Their method was an all out physical, painful, bloody war for domination. These were known as the Napoleonic Wars in honor of the man who initiated those wars.

I think you would have a better chance of selling your consiracy if you would refer to the culprits as 'Globalists'. But the term 'Neo-Jacobins' thus far does not cut it. It doesn't match with my understanding of history. If that is the case then you not just blowing smoke, you are blowing someone else's smoke.

My Humble Opinion

a different view
The republican party has no principles, and is bankrupt because it cow-tows to the extremists of two minorities that seek to destroy our culture. However, both parties are controlled by an elite group. The war on terror is a complete fraud designed to push Israel's agenda and insulate it from accountability. Crimes against humanity are long overdue against Israel for a host of atrocities, not to mention its barbaric policies of insuring that 4 or 5 of their adversaires are killed for each 1 of their own (and target any potential leader, whether male bull or most educated/intelligent); plus "collective punishment"; routine torture of occupied subjects (and violation of every principle of human rights under Geneva Convention).

Our media problem is huge, with less than 1% of journalists having the courage to buck the intimidators. They believe that money should prevail over truth and justice, which is evil to everybody else. A consequence of years of one sided reporting creates a sort of mental illness on the part of the populace; not unlike what happened in Russia. Follow the few great Americans (and read archives) with courage to speak truth to power: Pat Buchanan, Paul Craig Roberts, and Lou Dobbs.

Our media’s ability to create an artificial reality by coordinating articles from a small succession of similar persusion journalists is incredible, whether that is hating a new country or religion or people, or altering our taste for torture (with presentation of it in favorable light by Washington Post and television series 24); not to mention the culture attack via advertisements. Neocons advocated creative destruction of all of our laws, culture, traditions; and too many of us are silently tolerating it. They can control our “polls” like a water spigot.
Remember the attack on USS Liberty which was only reported in two obscure newspapers in USA in 1967, and not mentioned for 30 years. Such cover ups are justified under theory that Israel could not survive the disclosure of the truth, but the retort is that it justly deserves the consequences. Doubtless, that excuse was dusted off for all of the evidentiary links for Israel to 9/11, which were “classified” just like USS Liberty.
Despite our need for truth and freedom of ideas: Consider this, if the head of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University cannot get his article critical of Israeli Lobby published in USA (last year); yet the Washington Post permits Jews to publish long feature articles critical of the same article (that cannot be published here); little wonder that the rest of us have no voice.

How much oil we could have bought with the trillion dollars plus that we have and will spend on Iraqi (and reportedly the medical and custodial bills of severely wounded soldiers will exceed the half trillion that we spent early)? We could have given 5,000,000 Palestinians who live on less than $2. a day a million dollars each (except it is politically incorrect/impossible to consider any aid to them, and that sum would be way too much, as it would have Israelis claiming to be Palestinian). It is staggering to walk around the cost and the carnage; and realize the infrastructure is still in tatters; and the area set to be worse. It is horrifying to read articles that encourage GWB to preemptively nuke nations as means of allegedly salvaging his legacy (win by nuking the innocent; sounds like a Columbine massacre type thought).
Our 9/11 Commission refused to look into the issue of our "evilness" or complicity in causing 9/11 and due to politics, refused the wise advice of two former secretaries of State, Zibrenewski (sp) and James Baker to the effect that the first things to do are to attack those that attacked you and quickly and quietly redress and cure the areas of our moral weakness/wickedness which was the oppression of the Palestinians. However, Israelis will not permit any meaningful aid, and want only vengence and retribution; despite their richer history in dispensing terror (which is not PC to report here). So we opt to fight for eternity, as the evil ones, without aspiring to moral high ground. The elite group not only controls the war agenda, but immigration, globalization, mindless promotion of minorities, etc. (and that is why immigration was not on either parties agenda 17 years ago when 90% of Americans thought it a serious problem. Our sensitivities are numbed, and we are enslaved; yet it is imperative that we seek maturity and wisdom; and help from others; and good to talk. Thanks for reading.


Good
article Mr. McBride.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.