Triumph of the Bush Doctrine: Bush's critics grapple with successful "two-front war" on terrorism

IN THE MONTHS leading up to the War on Iraq, a convenient dodge for waffling Democrats who opposed the war but feared looking weak on national security was to fret about the Bush Doctrine’s impact on the War on Terror. In theory, they said, they had nothing against deposing Saddam Hussein, but to do so now would take precious national resources away from the fight against terrorism.

It’s now time to add that claim to the ever-mounting heap of discredited left-wing lies, misconceptions, and myths.

Despite the Bush Administration’s planning, mobilizing, and setting the diplomatic stage for Operation Iraqi Freedom throughout much of 2002, the broader War on Terror continued apace, and with great success. According to the U.S. State Department’s recently released Patterns of Global Terrorism—2002, there were, world over, 199 terrorist attacks last year, the lowest amount in more than 30 years—a 44 percent decline from 2001.

Of those 199 attacks, 77 were directed against Americans, a 65 percent decrease from the 219 attacks in 2001. Of course, that drop is due primarily to a decrease in oil pipeline bombings in Colombia (41 in 2002, as opposed to 178 in 2001), but even when one excludes the Columbian data, anti-American attacks fell from 41 to 36 in one year—a 13 percent decrease.

Add that to President George W. Bush’s boast in his speech aboard the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln that "nearly one-half of al-Qaeda’s senior operatives have been captured or killed," and a nation too "distracted" to deal with the terrorist threat appears to be dealing with it quite handily.

So much for the claim that effecting a regime change in Iraq is somehow incompatible with the goals of the War on Terror. Far from it, as I’ve observed in this space, and as Bush noted in his Lincoln address, Iraq was but a phase of the broader campaign against the Islamofascist enterprise, of which al-Qaeda is only one component. That campaign won’t end with the confirmed death or capture of Hussein or Osama bin Baden (welcome though those events would be), but with the reform or toppling of every group and state that makes up that enterprise.

So much, also, for one of the other popular myths commonly used to rationalize appeasement: Invading Iraq would jeopardize the vital support of U.S. allies in other anti-terrorist endeavors. If anything, America’s resolve and show of force has made allies in countries like Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Morocco, Pakistan, Tunisia, and the United Arab Emirates all the more cooperative.

And so much for the old fear that war would whip the "Arab Street" into an even greater anti-American fury. Every day another new news story reminds the world how much better off ordinary Iraqis are now than they were before the liberation. The effect is to send dual messages to the Arab world: You have nothing to gain from submitting to the Islamofascist order, and much to gain by resisting it.

More importantly, the liberation of Iraq has made the American military bases in Saudi Arabia—there to protect against an invasion from Saddam Hussein’s army—obsolete, thus enabling the U.S. to safely remove its forces, whose presence in Muslim holy lands had been one of the chief causes of anti-American sentiment.

All of which suggests that the War on Terror seems to be going every bit as well, although not as spectacularly, as its component war Iraq. The Bush Doctrine, for all its prominent left-wing detractors, is bearing fruit, most notably in the form of attacks thwarted. Meanwhile, the world need no longer worry that Hussein might dole out weapons of mass destruction to terrorists, offer any more terrorists safe haven, or continue sending bonus checks to the families of Palestinian terror-bombers.

But the War on Terror necessarily continues. The State Department has provided a list of the countries still supporting terrorism—Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria—as well as active terrorist organizations. Then there are countries that, for diplomatic reasons, don’t make the list (read: Saudi Arabia), but who are also being nudged, prodded, and coerced into joining the ranks of the civilized world.

As 9-11 made painfully clear, 1,000 terrorist attacks averted are easily eclipsed by just one that succeeds, especially one involving weapons of mass destruction.

Thus the need for continued vigilance in the fight against Islamofascism internationally and appeasement at home. Because if the War on Terror requires the use of American force again, the same lies and fears will return. Americans will hear the same criticisms and doubts from the same crowd that warned of quagmire in Afghanistan, prematurely declared defeat in Iraq, and still maintains that the best way for the U.S. to wage the War on Terror is to surrender to its enemies.

Those who said that the War on Terror and the War on Iraq were incompatible were never really interested in winning either. Their past advice now thoroughly discredited, their future advice is now best ignored.

;)

Can anybody tell me what the heck is going on in Iraq? Has the politics over there gone completely nuts, or what?
First of all, Monday the AP headlines an article with this: Garner: Group of 9 Will Likely Lead Iraq.
"A council of up to nine Iraqis will probably lead the country's still unformed interim government through the coming months," reads the lead-off paragraph, citing retired Lt. Gen. Jay Garner, U.S. civil administrator for Iraq, as the source.
Unsure of the AP story, I check other sources, just in case.
I run into this from WMUR: "The American civil administrator in Iraq says a group of as many as nine Iraqis will probably lead the country's government in the coming months," the station reports, again citing Lt. Gen. Garner as source.
What's so incredulous about all this?
Well, try this AP bombshell on for size: "The nine Iraqi candidates vying to lead their country clashed over the U.S.-led war against Iraq, health insurance and [Saddam's system of hand cuts (hand-chopping)] in an early debate in which they hope to distinguish themselves from the pack," writes Nedra Pickler from Baghdad Saturday.
"The recent conflict -- and the divisions among the candidates over the war -- were evident Saturday in the [debate's] opening questions," she adds.
The 90-minute debate, moderated by controversial host Gahayr "George" Stepoonawala, former political strategist for Saddam and lightning rod for criticism, was sponsored by Al-Jazeera Broadcasting Company (ABC), also at the center of controversy. The station's notoriously low standards for journalism puts it almost on a par with the New York Times and has made it fodder for late-night comedians like Jama "Jay" Lalenotfi, from a rival network.
"Moderator Stepoonawala focused initially on Bush's decision to order U.S. forces to lead a coalition to disarm Iraq and oust Saddam Hussein," Pickler notes. "He highlighted former [province] governor" and Ba'ath hardliner Hoque "Howard" Dhan's "statement earlier in the day that Saddam really wasn't much of a threat to the country."
Question: What on earth is a "Ba'ath hardliner" doing running for office in liberated Iraq? Wasn't post-War Germany de-Nazified? Why any less for post-war Iraq? Aren't the stakes just as high? Un-freakin' believable.
Jaouni "Joe" Labiberman, member of Saddam's ousted rubber-stamp Parliament, "took issue with [Gov. Dhan's] assessment [that Saddam was not a threat] to the United States and, most particularly, to his neighbors."
Throughout the debate, the candidates' first face-to-face encounter, Labiberman -- Ba'ath Party loyalist on most issues -- took the U.S. side regarding the war. The doonybrook, at times intensely personal, signaled growing fissures among Iraqis post-Saddam and cheered leading proponents of Quagmirist theory.
"America did the right thing in fighting this fight, and the [Iraqi] people will be safer as a result of it," Labiberman declared.
"We could have disarmed Hussein by working with the United Nations," Allouh al-Sharpton shot back. Al-Sharpton, a flamboyant, bombastic, colorful, chichi scandal machine, worked in Saddam's Revolutionary Command Council, impersonating an Islamic Mullah. The RCC's close ties with al-Qaeda, revealed in captured documents found recently among the rubble at Iraq's spy headquarters, remains hotly denied by most Ba'ath Party loyalists -- Dahleh "Dan" Rawdah prominent among them.
The New York Times reports that al-Sharpton "urged an end to disputes that could hurt the [Ba'athists] in their attempt to win [back the palaces]."
"'Republicans are watching,'" writes Adam Nagourney, quoting al-Sharpton, who added that "We should not have the bottom line tonight be that George Bush won because we were taking cheap shots at one another."
Boulos "Bob" Gharam, another ex-member of Parliament, sized up the debate, held on the campus of the world acclaimed Institute For The Production And Concealment Of WMD, somewhat differently. "We're not fighting each other. We're trying to select one of us to be the opponent of George Bush," he said.
Great. So we liberated Iraqis only so they could pick leaders vowing to oppose U.S. policy, right? Or am I missing something?
Al-Sharpton and Cala "Carol" Musa-Buwayh, yet another former Parliament Ba'athist and the only female hopeful, "focused on the expense of keeping U.S. forces in Iraq and the reconstruction of the war-torn nation," the AP reported.
Juwan Farouk Kerim "JFK", still another Ba'athist from Parliament, attacked Gov. Hoque "Howard" Dhan who attacked both Juwan Farouk Kerim and Jaouni "Joe" Labiberman, who attacked Juwan Farouk Kerim who attacked Dekel "Dick" Geber; al-Sharpton attacked Kerim and Geber and Labiberman, who also drew fire from Dinar "Dennis" Khehkashan who attacked Jaun "Ed" Waddah, still another ex-lawmaker, who attacked Kerim.
Hands-down, the heaviest exchange of the evening went to Kerim and Gov. Dhan, specifically on the question of fitness for high office. Gov. Dhan attacked Kerim for questioning his qualifications, while Kerim attacked Gov. Dhan as categorically unsuited for the job, noting Gov. Dhan had never served in the Republican Guard, as he -- Juwan Kerim -- had.
"Everyone respects [Juwan Kerim's] extraordinary, heroic service record, and I do as well," Gov. Dhan grudgingly acknowledged. Miffed, he added, however, that he'd "have preferred -- this is 30 years later -- I would have preferred, if [Kerim] had some concerns about my fitness to serve, that he speak to me directly about that rather than through his spokesman."
Kerim was having none of it: "I really think that anybody who has measured the tests that I think I have performed over the last years on any number of fights in [Saddam's Parliament], as well as my service in [Kuwait and Iran], that I don't need any lectures in courage from [Gov. Hoque Dhan]."
Kerim, with polls showing him the frontrunner in Baghdad, also drew fire from Labiberman, who accused Kerim of trying to have it both ways on the war.
"No [Ba'athist] will be elected...who is not strong on" freedom and national security, "and this war was a test of that." Failing that test, Labiberman added, "will not give the people confidence about our [Ba'ath] Party's willingness to make tough decisions to protect their [freedom] and security."
Host Gahayr "George" Stepoonwala then turned the discussion to healthcare, an issue the Geber campaign has seized recently with a proposal for universal coverage. The Geber plan forces all employers to insure their workers and pays for it by repealing Saddam's 'hand-cuts' -- notorious Iraqi torture methods used by the ousted regime against opponents. The heinous practice involved the chopping of hands ('hand-cuts'), pulling of tongues and electric shock treatment.
Jaun "Ed" Waddah attacked the plan as a sop to U.S. corporations, one which "takes hands directly out of the pockets of working people, and I know it gives it to corporations." Labiberman blasted the proposal as too expensive, another "big-spending [Ba'athist] idea of the past."
In defense, Geber said "If we're going to win this election, we cannot be [Saddam-lite]. We can't come along and say, 'Well, I'll keep half of [Saddam's program of hand-cuts]', or 'I'll keep three quarters of the [Saddam hand-cuts].' The [Saddam system of hand-cuts] have failed. They are not making the economy better, they are not helping people get jobs..."
Uh-oh...
I did it again, didn't I?
Don't tell me...please don't tell me...I screwed-up again.
Oh, no -- I did!
OMG.
This was the Democrat "debate" in South Carolina last Saturday...had nothing to do with a future government in Iraq -- thank Goodness!

"Questioning the motives of a 'desk-bound president who assumes the garb of a warrior,' Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd on Tuesday reproached President Bush for flying onto an aircraft carrier last week to declare an end of major fighting in Iraq," reports the AP.
Bush, in other words, should not have flown onto an aircraft carrier last week to declare an end to major fighting in Iraq. Byrd, who opposed the war, now supports the war, and doesn't want "an end of major fighting in Iraq" declared yet -- not so soon, right? Er, not quite.
"I am loath to think of an aircraft carrier being used as an advertising backdrop for a presidential political slogan, and yet that is what I saw," Byrd is quoted as saying.
Ah, so the problem was venue.
Look, I'm willing to cut old sheets some slack here.
Actually, I was kinda wondering what had happened to Byrd -- he seemed mighty quiet lately. Before the war, hardly a day would pass without the scintillating clod from West Virginia, who says he doesn't hate anybody unless *anybody* is black, Hispanic, Asian or Indian, babbling brilliance by the toilet bowl full on the Senate floor, 'weeping' sanctimoniously for his country -- Iraq.
But put yourself in his shoes for a moment. You think you're a *man of letters,* but the only letters people associate you with are KKK. Everything about this war has exposed you as a blithering idiot. You have a gift for getting things wrong. Your titillating Quagmire scenarios have come a cropper.
But, worst of all, you don't know if Saddam is dead or alive. You're worried. The betting is he's pushing up daises. Understandably, Byrd is hurt, angry, grief-stricken. Losing a loved one is never easy. There's a healing process and mustering the strength and courage to go on -- well, easier said than done. How about forming a grief support group, O Libs? Oops, they already have one. It's called the Democrat Party.
"Byrd contrasted [Bush's] speech with the 'simple dignity' of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address during the Civil War," says the AP.
The Grand Kleagle praising Lincoln's Gettysburg Address?
How so much amnesia could fit into such tiny brains, I'll never know.

"Al-Qaeda may be rebuilding," screamed the Christian Science Monitor Monday. "Some intelligence sources and experts outside government believe that Al Qaeda has been quiet by choice, not because its plans have been disrupted," the paper boldly declares.
"There is also evidence," we're told, "that Al Qaeda's remaining leadership believes the war in Iraq will produce a new stream of recruits disenchanted with American actions, perhaps allowing Al Qaeda to create a new front of international jihad."
The terrorist are getting really, really, really mad at us, eh? Imagine that? And for what? Toppling Saddam? I thought there were no ties between Saddam and al-Qaeda? Go figure.
Bush is losing the War on Terror! A world without Saddam is more dangerous. A world with fewer governments willing to harbor terrorists lowers our security, you see.
Darn, Bush shoulda left Saddam alone, or lost the war. Then al-Qaeda would disappear, or wouldn't be mad at us, and we'd all live happily holding hands ever after.
Meanwhile....
"Spy Agencies' Optimism on Al Qaeda Is Growing: Lack of Attacks Thought to Show Group Is Nearly Crippled," says Tuesday's Washington Post.
"The failure of al-Qaeda to launch terrorist attacks against the United States or its allies during the war in Iraq has bolstered a growing belief among U.S. intelligence agencies that 19 months of worldwide counterterrorism operations and arrests have nearly crippled the organizations," writes Walter Pincus and Dana Priest.
"Intelligence officials" they add, "said the killings or capture of senior al Qaeda members, the interrogation of imprisoned figures, the elimination of Afghanistan as a base of operations, and the ongoing hunt for other al Qaeda adherents has disrupted the network's ability to communicate and made it much more difficult for it to plan large-scale attacks."
So much for the gloom and doom.
Anyway, that's...
My two cents...
"JohnHuang2"

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.