With each passing day, Election 2008 becomes more and more important. This will surprise many Americans, Virginians, and bloggers, who have by now become accustomed to the conventional wisdom that, aside from Iraq, the two candidates are not dramatically different. This past week has shown us that nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the reactions of candidates and pundits alike to the Boumediene decision reveal a deep chasm not just about Iraq, but about the entire Wahabbist-Ba’athist-Khomeinist War, which, should Obama win this fall, will inevitably lead to a premature withdrawal from both Iraq and Afghanistan.
To see how I have come to this conclusion, take a look at Obama’s reaction to Boumediene – a decision which all but forces the United States to try all enemy combatants in civilian courts, and put said combatants on equal footing with every other defendant in the justice system (DC Examiner):
On Monday, Obama applauded the civilian prosecution of terrorists prior to the attacks of September 11, 2001.
“In previous terrorist attacks — for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center — we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial,” he told ABC. “They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated.”
Obama said President Bush has relied too heavily on military prosecution of terrorists, which has “given a huge boost to terrorist recruitment in countries that say, ‘Look, this is how the United States treats Muslims.’”
First of all, Obama is spectacularly wrong on the facts. We did not arrest Abdul Rahman Yasin; he fled to the protection of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and remains at large to this very day (Weekly Standard).
What is more troubling is that the 1990s method of law enforcement led directly to the “Gorelick firewall,” which was specifically cited by John Ashcroft (Attorney General, 2001-2005) as a huge obstacle to efforts to prevent 9/11 (Volokh Conspiracy). More generally, the entire notion of law-enforcement first has been panned by serious national security experts, including a member of the 9/11 Commission (Weekly Standard).
Last but most, by citing the 1993 attack prosecutions as a “success” while castigating the use of military force as “a huge boost to terrorist recruitment,” Obama has let slip his real views on the WBK War (a.k.a. the War on Terror) – and it’s very sobering. In effect, Obama is treating the WBK War as one that should not include military force – i.e., as something other than war.
This means not only is the liberation of Iraq in jeopardy during an Obama Administration, so is the liberation of Afghanistan. This isn’t the first time I’ve thought the Democrats would pull the plug on Afghanistan, but it is the clearest symbol yet that Obama would do it. Given the unpopularity of the Afghan deployment in the rest of the world (including many of our NATO allies). I have no reason to believe Obama will resist the pressure from international arenas and elements within his own party to wash his hands of Afghanistan and the entire WBK War as a Bush overreaction.
I’ll show how Obama would do this in Part II.
I’m in the process of writing about this mocking the fact that soldiers better read Osama bin Laden his Miranda rights and pointing out that Omar Abdel-Rahman (the “blind sheikh”) has not been incapacitated due to the fact that his attorney was passing messages to his followers.
The full post should be up tonight.
These are excellent points. Our friends on the left seem not to be able to answer to the fact that Saddam harbored and funded terrorists who killed American citizens (and those of our allies).
I might add that the Clinton Administration screwed up a lot of the legal prosecution of these terrorists. Louis Freeh had an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal a few years back about how, in the wake of the Khobar Towers bombing, former President George Bush went to talk to the Saudis about prosecuting the terrorists involved. The Clinton Justice Department (and Sandy Berger, I think) completely dropped the ball on that issue and wouldn’t follow up.
And let’s not forget the “Gorelick wall” either that prevented law enforcement from cooperating with counterterrorism intelligence. Jim Gilmore rightly pointed out the flaws in the Clinton Administration policies.
DJ: We won’t lose the World War Against Islamists in 4 years or in 8 years unless we surrender. The U.S. under incompetent and Liberal leadership can make a huge mess of things. Rumsfeld screwed up the Iraq campaign for 2 years – and we recovered at cost.
You identify three sects of Islamists. They are a naturally occurring anti-Western, jihadist faction that will always sprout from Islam unless there is a Renaissance, Reformation and Enlightenment across the (relatively to the West) barbarian Islamic Civilization.
Once you let slip loose the dogs of war, the dynamics of war are their own. The war never goes as planned, expected or predicted – to the participants. Maybe to historians, but not the combatants.
Europe will be a Muslim majority by 2100 – that means Russian, French and British nukes – under Muslim rule – and the great resources and capital of that continent. Or, something will happen along the way to change that outcome. Something wonderful or something terrible. We can’t predict. We can lay out the alternatives and point the path for them to happen or not.
The metaphor for this war for the U.S. is our Indian Wars. 1608 – 1890 is a long time. Many different Indian enemies and Indian allies. But, the issue of one culture supporting one civilization, country and society at a time in place was resolved.
Our strategic position is to contain Islam, like Communism, and let it crash under its own contradictions. Our operational and tactical position is to take the offense at the time and place of our choosing.
It will be a long, long war. Whether you think it started in 1979, or the 19th Century or 622 AD. It will be a long war.
I would consider the handover of Iraq and Afghanstan tantamout to surrender.
Also, it would send a terrible signal of weakness to Communist China, which could even be worse.
Also, only two enemy groups are “Islamists;” the Ba’athists are a pan-Arab Nazi offshoot. BE careful not to limit our enemy to religious sects, Jim. It can blind you to the enemies driven by other motives, including the Communist Chinese, who have made the WBK War part of the larger Second Cold War.
[...] this election will decide the fate of the War (Part II) In yesterday’s post, I presented reasons why I believe an Obama Administration will stop (and therefore lose) the WBK [...]
DJ: I know that religion is often the rally point for scoundrels who would try something else if they couldn’t manipulate religious fervor. Got it. Don’t forget that if the groups today are defeated – eliminated. There will be new ones tomorrow – based on someone’s reading of the Koran or someone seeing the opportunity to get ahead using the Koran etc.
There were over 60 Islamist organizations on 9-11.
[...] RWL has more. [...]
[...] this election will decide the fate of the War (Part III) In the previous installments of this series, I described why and how an Obama Administration will mean defeats in [...]
[...] This is the final part of my series on the election and the war. The first two dealt with why and how an Obama Administration would lead us to defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan; the third dealt [...]
[...] on Afghanistan Major Eric Egland echoes a point on Afghanistan that I’ve been making for some time. Here are the key excerpts from his National Review Online column (emphasis added): [...]