Remember?

I understand that the “Blind Sheik” is near death – by now he may be dead, for all I know.

Anyway, it seems that American intelligence and law enforcement agencies are concerned that Islamic fascist terrorists may try to stage attacks on, and in, the United States if and when he actually dies.

So how does that make things any different than any other day?

Have the five years since the last attack on American soil just been a case of their taking some time off to give us a break?

I know readers of this space have heard me say it time and again, and I recognize that I shouldn’t be too haughty when I point this out – in fact, I fully expect another successful terrorist strike against us at some time in the future – but this whole episode regarding the blind terrorist only serves to remind me of how successful the Bush Administration has been in preventing another attack to take place following the horror of September 11, 2001. For those keeping score at home, that’s five years, three months, and four days since Islamist barbarians have scored a “hit” on American soil.

For all the missteps that may have been made in administering the war and its aftermath in Iraq, fairness demands that everyone acknowledge that the lack of another such attack here at home is no accident or coincidence (of course, I am fully aware that not everyone is fair). And it provides further evidence – though, granted, not conclusive evidence – that engaging the enemy on his “home turf” has been a vital part of keeping him from planning and carrying out operations here. For all the troubles that the bad guys are causing, they are unquestionably on the defensive over there, rather than on the offensive over here.

Of course, I am one who believes that, ironically, the success of President Bush and his administration in returning life to “normalcy” here at home has been a major source of voter dissatisfaction with him. There has never been a serious attempt to fully ingrain in the minds of Americans that we are in a war for survival, other than the President’s occasional reminder that “we are at war.”

This has allowed many non-observant types to come to the conclusion that there is no real war going on and no impending external threat to the nation. After all, life as many see it goes on as it always has. And if there is no war going on, why are there nearly 3,000 new military graves here in the United States? (By the way, can any of you tell me how many of the sub-human terrorists have been killed by our forces? Me neither – the government stopped talking about these numbers publicly a while back – but I know it’s a lot more than 3,000).

George Orwell once said that people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. In a world where evil, and evil men, exists, safety and security don’t just happen. And just because we haven’t had to deal with the horrors, and inconveniences, that people in other nations do on a regular basis for over five years doesn’t mean that it’s for a lack of desire on the part of evil doers.

Our military personnel, and their Commander In Chief, recognize that eternal vigilance is the price of freedom. It concerns me that eternal vigilance is no longer a high priority for many of the people from whence their power derives.

December 7, 1941

Remember . . .

Losing?

Sorry for the lack of posts lately. Following the election – which went better for the GOP here in Tennessee than it did in most parts of the country – I’ve been taking some time to decompress and get ready for the holidays, before reverting back to "the routine" next year.

Posts will still be erratic for the remainder of 2006, but I began to rant in my head following a headline I read on the Drudge Report, regarding comments made by the nominee for Defense Secretary on America’s “winning” or “losing” in Iraq. I finally decided to go ahead and get my thoughts down. Here’s hoping they're halfway intelligible.

JLH

Here’s the deal. We went to war with the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq. That regime has been overthrown, a new one set up in its place, and Saddam has been sentenced to die for his crimes by that regime. By definition, then, we won the war (which is, in reality, a mere battle as part of a much larger global war).

The questions regarding the current crises in Iraq are not about the U.S. “winning” in Iraq, unless one wants to assert (I know, some do) that we are engaging in an imperial effort to expand our territory with some form of “American Colony” in western Asia. The decision to invade Iraq was not about our getting the Iraqis to accept us as their new leaders. It was about removing the threat posed to America by an outlaw regime with a history of reckless activity.

The difficulties now being faced in Iraq have more to do with the indigenous population’s ability to live in peace with one another, even those with whom they disagree, without resorting to indiscriminate killing to “settle” their differences. We are trying to provide assistance in that regard – granted, one may legitimately ask if that role is an appropriate priority for the U.S. military at this time – but the difficulties and mayhem will not cease until the people we are trying to help demonstrate a willingness to be helped by living in a civilized manner.

With that in mind, I have to say that it’s not the Americans who are blowing it, if anyone is. It’s the Iraqis, and the members of “Arab street,” who are not willing to take the opportunity that is before them and make the most of it. This is all about the aftermath of war, which must be “won” by the Iraqi people themselves – with or without the help of anyone else.

The threat posed by the Saddam regime has been removed. Are there other threats to our safety and freedoms following the war on Iraq? Of course, just as Josef Stalin was still around after Adolph Hitler was eliminated. Is there a possibility that the nation might collapse following the withdrawal of allied troops, making Iraq easy prey for its tyrannical neighbors? One must concede it to be so. But even that would not impute defeat to the United States in the war that it waged on Saddam Hussein, anymore than an American collapse due to an unwillingness to work together in the 1780s would have imputed defeat to the French, who – rightfully – claimed their share of the victory over England in the American Revolution.

It’s nice to think that we might be able to help the Iraqi people get their internal affairs in order following the successful completion of the war on the Hussein regime, but that is not a military objective. The only “loss” that can be suffered by anyone right now is the loss the Iraqi people are looking at.

America’s constitutional regime still stands. Saddam Hussein’s tyrannical regime has collapsed. The threat posed by that regime to American interests has been eliminated. We have won, and it is a victory that cannot be taken away from us by anything short of a return of Saddam to power. But, interestingly enough, the Iraqis may settle that item for us soon.