The Biggest Winners By Cal Thomas And Some Comments

It may well be that the Republican Congress deserved to be turned out. It may well be that grievous mistakes have been made in Iraq. (Churchill once said that war is a series of blunders and catastrophes until one side is exhausted and the other side wins. Look up what happened at Dieppe or at Kasserine Pass.) The fact remains that the terrorists are still out there, Iraq is still critical and still needs our support, and if we abandon them, we’ll never again get anyone to throw in with us.

It seems to me that inviting Iran and Syria to help stabilize Iraq is like inviting the foxes to help out in the henhouse. It seems to me that most of the anger about Iraq is over the fact that we haven’t accomplished our objectives there yet, and the violence between religious sects has been escalating and well-publicized. With all the mistakes that have been made, I still feel that Rumsfeld’s basic strategy of limiting the number of troops there was a wise one with the best chance of succeeding, given our experience in Vietnam.

November 14, 2006
The Biggest Winners
By Cal Thomas

The biggest winners in last week's election were the enemies of the United States, who see the results as confirmation of one of their doctrines: the United States is weak and does not have the commitment to fight a protracted war.

There is no talk of a new strategy on their side. They don't hold elections to replace their leadership with people who will negotiate and compromise with the United States, or the elected Iraqi government. Their media do not carry voices calling for a new approach to the war.

America's enemies are gloating more than Democrats. But unlike Democrats, their intentions are evil. If the terrorists are to be believed (and who can credibly doubt them?), the U.S. election will encourage them to fight on and kill more of our soldiers.

Here is some of their post-election analysis: The leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, posted a recording on the Internet on which he claimed to have 12,000 armed fighters and 10,000 others waiting to be equipped to battle American troops in Iraq. He said he wants Americans to stay in Iraq so more can be killed. "I swear by God we shall not rest from jihad until we... blow up the filthiest house known as the White House," the voice on the recording said.

Those "fabulous Baker boys" will soon deliver the Iraq Study Group's report to the president. Expect whatever it recommends to be implemented. These mostly former associates of former President George H.W. Bush have long believed that Israel is the primary cause of destabilization in the region. This is, and always has been, a false doctrine, but it is an enticing one for those who do not want to disturb the flow of oil and other monetary benefits that come to people who either want to hide their anti-Semitism and/or reap large profits from Arab oil magnates.

If this were a novel, it would be chilling enough, but this is reality. The Islamofascists really do want to defeat America in Iraq and then use a failed state to replicate 9/11s (and worse) around the world. They say so, and their actions prove their intent.

Europe is in a permanent state of denial. The European media are clucking about the election results. They believe if America prematurely withdraws from Iraq, Europeans will be safer. In fact, Europe will be - and, in reality, already is - in its greatest danger since World War II.

Another reminder of the increasing threat to Europe comes from the head of British intelligence. The director general of MI5, Eliza Manningham-Buller, said as many as 30 major terrorist plots are being planned in the country and that future threats could involve chemical and nuclear technology. She said young Muslims are being groomed to become suicide bombers and that MI5 agents are tracking 1,600 suspects, most of whom were born in Britain and are linked to al-Qaeda in Pakistan. Prime Minister Tony Blair, who once called for the expulsion of seditionist radicals and the closing of some mosques, has been rebuffed by the British courts, which continue to treat terrorism as a crime problem instead of a war. Radical Muslims have flooded Europe, but Europeans pretend they will not be harmed if they imagine the enemy poses no threat.

Both a novelist and a realist could write the following scenario: In an effort to take Iraq off the table as an issue in the 2008 presidential campaign, the Bush administration adopts most of the provisions of the Iraq Study Group. In a modern version of the Paris Peace Talks, which allowed the United States to have "peace with honor" and withdraw from Vietnam (resulting in the deaths, imprisonment and "re-education" of unknown numbers of Vietnamese who wanted to be free), the administration then orders a "redeployment" of forces after "negotiations" with Syria and Iran (recommended by Blair). This allows just enough time for American troops to leave before al-Qaeda murders the elected leadership and takes over Iraq.

Meanwhile in the United States, mosques and Islamic schools paid for by the extremist Wahhabi sect, multiply like fast-food franchises. Terrorists are imported and recruited from prisons. Al-Qaeda announces that weapons of mass destruction have been placed in key American and European cities. They demand that the United States withdraw its protection of Israel. If we refuse, they threaten to detonate their weapons, killing millions of people. What president, or prime minister, will reject that demand? After capitulating on the installment plan, who will have the political or moral capital (or military capacity) to stop Armageddon?
Cal Thomas Realclearpolitics.com