Why 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 War - not just in Iraq, but Afghanistan as well.  Surprisingly, there hasn’t been much argument, which I take as a humbling reminder that I am not as important as my ego would like, otherwise I’d have more readers!

That said, I’m sure there are some who were surprised to read my assertion.  I stand by it, though, and I believe I can project how President Obama would do it.

It’s 2010; most (if not all) American troops are out of Iraq.  Iran’s proxies and al-Qaeda have likely regrouped and are carving up the place between them.  Meanwhile, outside actors (i.e., neither backed by al Qaeda or Iran) are causing enough mayhem to make it appear that the Sunni-Shia “civil war” has returned (keep in mind, both Iran and al-Q had a vested interest in maintaining the “Iraq civil war” mantra).

Most Americans assume that end of our involvement in Iraq would make the Afghanistan theatre easier.  They would be wrong.  In much of the rest of the world, Afghanistan and Iraq are distinctions without a difference.  As Obama will find out, our withdrawal from Iraq will do nothing to improve our image in the rest of the world.  If anything, about the only nation where a change in view might come is Saudi Arabia, which will be less happy with the United States.

Meanwhile, the pressure to likewise pull out of Afghanistan will become unbearable.  Already, a majority of Canadian Members of Parliament want their troops off the battlefield by 2011.  The Canadian Senate has called for negotiations with the Taliban; Pakistan and Britain are actually conducting said talks.

Finally, there is the al Qaeda-Taliban presence in Pakistan.  Obama has commented about going after them there, no matter what the Pakistani people want.  I would humbly submit that’s a lot of hot air.  Obama has done nothing to show that he would have the gumption to conduct a unilateralwar like that in the face of near-universal opposition (only India would support us, which for the short-sighted, Euro-centric Democratic Party means no one of significance would).  More likely, this vague talk of going after Pakistan is akin to the head-fake he pulled on pro-life Illinois voters during his tenure in the State Senate.  Moreover, once it becomes clear that a war with Pakistan is notwhat his international friends and domestic supporters want, the al Qaeda presence there will be Obama’s excuse for getting out of the Afghan “quagmire.”

From there, the revisionist approach to the last deacde (2001-10) will be swift.  It will go something like this: the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were “overreactions” by an angry President who didn’t understand the ways of the world; a president who understands “nuance” and “diplomacy” would neverhave been so quick to act without thinking it through; perhaps if we had talked to the Taliban back then, they would have handed over Obama Osama (thank you, Susan Nelson) for trial, but now we’ll never know.

Of course, there will still be talk about “vigilance” and “resisting terror,” even as we hand over Afghanistan to a UN peacekeeping force that was best known as standing by while the Taliban took power the first time.  Also, no one will bother to mention the inconvenient fact that the Taliban appointed bin Laden their military Commander-in-Chief less than two weeks before 9/11, except for Vladimir Putin and the Republicans, who to the new regime and MSM will be just as bad as Putin.

So when the last American leaves Afghanistan (which I assume will be after the last one leaves Iraq), we will hear endless praise for Obama as the man who got us out of “Bush’s wars.”  Foreign capitals will hail the “new era.”  Even the newly rehabilitated Taliban will get in on the fun . . . until we are hit again, and it will be far, far worse.

By then, though, the Wahhabists, Ba’athists, and Khomeinists will know that America, in the long run, is weak.  Maybe there will be war for a few years, but in time, our morale will weaken, our resolve will dissolve, and they will win.  That will be what President Obama teaches them.

That is also why we cannot allow him to be elected.

As readers of this space know, I don’t place much value in “defensive voting,” and despite the above declaration, I still don’t.  If the election comes down to “Obama will lose the war,” he may still have the opportunity to do just that.

It will be far better for the theme of the campaign to be, “John McCain will fight the war, and only John McCain can win the War.”  For McCain, this has the double advantage of not only comparing himself to Obama, but also to allthird-party candidates, each of whom (Nader, Barr, and Baldwin) are prepared to withdraw quickly from Iraq and are likely to support pulling out of Afghanistan as well.

Will that be enough for McCain to win the election?  Perhaps, but there are other things he can do, and other things right and center-right voters can do, to make his election easier.  I’ll get into those in later posts.

Why this election will decide the fate of the War (Part I)

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.

Communist Chinese arms in enemy hands in Afghanistan and Iraq

The Deputy Secretary of State admitted as much in testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.  However, he did not mention it is his Pollyannaish opening remarks; Senators had to draw it out of him in later testimony.

When Iran arms the enemy, the Administration calls them on it - as it should.  When North Korea arms the enemy, the Administration calls them on it - as it should.  Why does Communist China get lighter treatment?

Yet another Communist Chinese myth on “terrorism” debunked

Communist China has tried very hard to conceal its support for our enemies in the  Wahhabist-Ba’athist-Khomeinst War (a.k.a. the War on Terror).  Only recently has it come clean regarding its support for Iran’s nuclear ambitions; yet even then, it managed to escape criticism.

Why? A very large part of it has to do with its success in convincing the rest of the world that it is fighting Islamic terrorism in occupied East Turkestan (the Communists call the place “Xinjiang province”).  Just last month, the cadres trumpeted a raid against a supposed terror cell in Urumqi (BBC, emphasis in original):

China says it has destroyed a “terrorist gang” in a raid in the north-western province of Xinjiang.

State media reported that two people were killed and 15 arrested in the raid on an apartment in the provincial capital Urumqi last month.

China has been struggling for years to contain separatist sentiment among the Uighur minority in Xinjiang.

Many Uigurs have campaigned for the mainly Muslim province to become an independent republic.

The Global Times, a newspaper published by the Communist Party mouthpiece China Daily, said the raid on 27 January was the largest of its kind in over a year.

The newspaper reported that guns, home-made bombs and extremist literature were found in the apartment.

Five policemen were injured by home-made grenades during the raid, it said.

It all sounds very dramatic, specific, and dangerous, except that it never happened.  An intrepid Agence France Presse reporter (I wish AFP could provide the name, but I can understand why it wouldn’t) went to the apartment complex in question and talked to several bewildered residents (emphasis added):

As China tells it, police burst into the Happiness Garden apartments in this northwestern city and raided a fourth-floor flat where “terrorists” were holed up.

But that’s news to residents of the quiet middle-class compound in the dusty and remote Xinjiang region.

“No, no, no. There was nothing like that. That’s nonsense,” said a local resident, a member of the Muslim ethnic Uighur minority, when asked about the dramatic official version of the January 27 raid.

The man, whose name has been withheld to protect him from possible reprisals, was one of more than a dozen residents to question Chinese reports that Beijing said proved a terror threat in vast, heavily Muslim Xinjiang.

In an ensuing clash described by state-controlled press and Xinjiang’s top Communist Party official, Wang Lequan, militants threw grenades at police, injuring seven officers.

Eventually, two militants were killed and another 15 captured by police.

Weapons, explosives and militant Islamic literature were allegedly seized in the raid, which made world headlines for its implications on Olympic security.

Strangely, however, it went largely unnoticed at Happiness Garden, whose flats are so tightly packed it would be difficult to keep anything from the neighbours.

The Communists are heavily vested in the East Turkestan ”terrorist” propaganda, because without it, their true policy on the WBK War is revealed: they support all of our enemies.

in fact, the WBK War has become a part of the Second Cold War, between us and Communist China.  The sooner we recognize that, the sooner we will win.  America will never be secure until China is free.

Will Obama pull out of Afghanistan, too?

Barack Obama made the most troubling statement I have ever heard in Campaign 2008 (CNN):

This war has now lasted longer than World War I, World War II or the Civil War

First of all, as nearly anyone outside the United States can confirm to the Audacity of Hype, World War II was a six-year war, not a four-year war.  Our refusal to engage in direct hostilities until December 1941 does not erase the rape of Poland, the fall of France, Dunkirk, the Battle of Britain, and the invasion of the Soviet Union.

Even more worrisome to me, however, is Obama’s fascination with time, and his explanation for why the Iraq theatre of the WBK War was essentially not worth the trouble in his view:

“Nearly 4,000 Americans have given their lives. Thousands more have been wounded. Even under the best-case scenario, this war will cost American taxpayers well over a trillion dollars,” he added. “And where are we for all this sacrifice? We are less able to shape events abroad.”

If Obama’s concern is nothing but being “able to shape events abroad” - what happened to protecting our citizens, Barack? - such logic can easily be extended to Afghanistan as well.  Again, outside of the United States, Afghanistan is a very controversial endeavor.  Even here in the U.S., public support for the Afghan mission has been weak (as in below 60%).  The next American President will hear loud calls for a withdrawal, and feel a ton of pressure for the same, coming from many of our own allies.  It will take tremendous political courage just to keep the WBK War ongoing, let alone the Iraq theatre.

Obama has not shown this kind of courage.  In fact, this most recent statement confirms my worst fears about the Democratic Party.  Should either Clinton or Obama win, I predict (as I have predicted before) that Americans will not only leave Iraq without victory, but Afghanistan as well.  I am now all but certain of this should the Democratic nominee be Obama.

More on Saddam Hussein’s ties to al Qaeda

With the Bush Administration’s ridiculous silence on the captured documents from the Saddam Hussein regime, it is up to us in the blogosphere to spread the word: Saddam’s ties to terrorists ran long and deep, and yes, that included al Qaeda.  Of course, the average American wouldn’t know this from MSM, which has already misreported the inital reports on these documents, the National Intelligence, Estimate on Iran, and heaven knows what else.  Still facts are stubborn things, and these documents reveal the facts for all to see.

In the early 1990s, Saddam asked his minions to list the ”friendly elements” that he could use to hunt down Americans.  His foreign intelligence chief responded thusly (Weekly Standard Blog):

In reference to your memo Top Secret Personal and Very Urgent 425/K dated 18 Jan 1993. Below are the groups with whom our agency has relations, and who have elements dispersed on the Arab land and have the expertise to carry out the aforementioned mission.

Among the eleven organizations listed were the one of the building blocks of al Qaeda - Egyptian Islamic Jihad (Ayman al-Zawahiri’s group, allied with bin Laden since the 1990s and an official part of al Qaeda since 2002) - and Jamiat-e-Ulema Islam, which spawned the Taliban.

These were the forces to whom Saddam looked when he wanted to kill Americans.  No ties to terror or al Qaeda?  That isn’t funny anymore.

John McCain for President (UPDATED)

Eight years ago, after the candidate of my choice (Steve Forbes) was knocked out of the Republican presidential race, I found myself supporting John McCain.  It was a surprise to nearly all who knew me - and in truth, to myself as well.  I came to support McCain then because I considered him the best among the candidates who remained.

That I came to that conclusion was a surprise then; that I have come to the same conclusion eight years later is a complete shock.  Granted the circumstances were the same - my preferred candidate (in this case, Duncan Hunter) was knocked out of the race, forcing me to choose again.

Still, I think an explanation is warranted as to why I am the only OBDA member besides SST’s Old Zach to support the Senator from Arizona.

As I have traveled the road from Fairfax County political activist to Spotsylvania blogger, America has gone from a deceptive “peace” to a war for her survival against an array of enemies from the Middle East and Central Asia (Wahhabists, Ba’athists, and Khomeinists - hence my term for this war: the Wahhabist-Ba’athist-Khomeinist War, or WBK War for short).  Now, of the five candidates, only four (McCain, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and Mike Huckabee) and seem to recognize the danger we face; only three (McCain, Giuliani, and Huckabee) seem determined to fight the enemy wherever it can be found; only two (McCain and Giuliani) are adequately aware of the ways of the world to put that determination to good use.

Only one has the experience, determination, foresight, and vision to win this war as soon as possible, and he is John McCain.  Now, the lack of foreign policy experience is not Giuliani’s fault, and I certainly believe Rudy could make up for it quickly, but McCain’s advantage cannot be denied.

On domestic matters, the picture is admittedly more cloudy.  However, I would humbly submit that John McCain - yes, John McCain - is the closest we will get to a genuine right-wing alternative.  His deviations from the norm - campaign finance “reform”, “global warming”, and the early opposition to the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 - are far less problematic than they appear at first.  For starters, has any candidate pledged to repeal the now infamous McCain-Feingold?  Would anyone besides Dr. Paul even consider doing such a thing?  As for the Bush tax cuts, while McCain opposed them at first, he did vote to make them permanent in 2006.  That may seem contradictory to some, but in reality, McCain - whatever his problems with the Bush tax cuts (and I disagreed with him on them then) - has always opposed an economic tax increase (he did support a heavy - and in my view unwise - tax on tobacco in 1998).  He also recognizes that sunsetting the 2001 and 2003 tax reductions would be a mammoth tax increase that must be avoided at all cost.  Just as important, McCain is the one candidate (outside of Dr. Paul) who has repeatedly emphasized the need to reduce government spending to cure our economic ills (in particular contrast to Huckabee).  He also presents a far more national economic outlook than the local pandering to which both Romney and Giuliani have succumbed.  As for “global warming,” I’ll admit McCain’s position troubles me, but he has also insisted that any action against “climate change” would have to include Communist China - which, as I have found from following politics outside the United States, is an effective poison-pill for any successor of the Kyoto fiasco.  Besides, while no one has gone as far as McCain on this issue, nearly all (i.e., all except Paul) have swallowed the “global warming” nonsense.

The fact is, each candidate has problems on domestic issues - even Dr. Paul is not perfect.  However, on the gamut of issues (defense of pre-born life, free trade, taxes and spending, gun rights, etc.), McCain has the best spectrum of positions and policies besides Dr. Paul, who has disqualified himself by his refusal to accept the nature of the war we are fighting.

I will make one comment on ”electability.”  I generally don’t concern myself with this, in part because it is an amorphous notion that is far more difficultly defined than most are willing to admit (see my numerous comments on Virginia’s upcoming U.S. Senate race).  That said, it has been clear in several polls that McCain - and only McCain - is competitive with Barack Obama; and he alone routinely beats Senator Clinton in the polls.  I only mention this because I genuinely believe (and have repeatedly stated) that the Democrats, should they take power, will withdraw not only from Iraq, but also from Afghanistan.  As such, this election is far more important than many realize.

This also returns us to the WBK War - and the main reason I have once again come to support McCain.  Again, of the five candidates remaining, only John McCain has the experience, determination, foresight, and vision to win this war in the least amount of time, blood, and treasure.

Would I have preferred a better candidate?  Don’t forget; I had a better candidate in Duncan Hunter; were he still in the race, he would still have my support.  He is not, and for me, among the group that’s left, I choose to support McCain.

UPDATE: Of course, there is also the issue of illegal immigration, in which all four candidates not named Paul held similar positions.  I leave it to others to affirm the validity of the sea-changes of the other three; I find them extremely suspect.  Besides, if George W. Bush couldn’t get “immigration reform” through a Republican or a Democratic Congress, I sincerely doubt McCain will.

Um, Ron, the terrorists DID try to attack Canada

As I was trying to follow Jim Geraghty’s tracking of the GOP debate, this post included a comment that stopped me cold (emphasis added):

(Moderator Charlie) Gibson is left making the “Time out” moment as everybody goes after (Ron) Paul when he asks why Islamists don’t attack Canada.

Perhaps Dr. Paul missed the memo, but the enemy is going after Canada (CNN and CTV, and the National Post, which I quote below):

The suspected “homegrown” Canadian extremists arrested by the RCMP in Toronto on June 2 were allegedly motivated partly by their anger over Afghanistan. Authorities claim they intended to take hostages on Parliament Hill and kill the Prime Minister unless he withdrew troops from Afghanistan and released all Muslims from Canadian prisons.

I want to like Dr. Paul; I really do, but each time he talks about foreign policy, he reveals a shocking and dangerous ignorance about the world around him.

CANADIAN READERS: Feel free to contact Dr. Paul’s campaign (here or here) and set him straight on the terrorist threat to the Great White North.

Portents of the upcoming Democratic withdrawal from Afghanistan: Part III

It looks like we have a new feature here at RWL: tracking signs that the Democrats, should they ever win the White House, will pull out of Afghanistan before the Taliban is defeated.

I know, I know, I just questioned the wisdom of sending more troops there, but I certainly don’t think the troops that currently are in Afghanistan should leave while the Talibs are still hoping to return that country to the status quo ante 9/11/01.

However, I have good reason to believe that the Democrats will pull out and pretend Afghanistan just went away. My previous concerns were based on the polled views of the American people (Part I and Part II). Today’s evidence comes straight from the horse’s mouth (via National Review Online):

The House Armed Services Committee is banishing the global war on terror from the 2008 defense budget.This is not because the war has been won, lost or even called off, but because the committee’s Democratic leadership doesn’t like the phrase.

Now, as someone who coined his own name for the War on Terror, I can’t exactly complain about this per se. However, it’s a lot easier for a Democratic President to pull out of the “war in Afghanistan” than the “war on terror.” Take a good look at the next paragraph (emphasis added):

Committee staff members are told in the memo to use specific references to specific operations instead of the Bush administration’s catch phrases. The memo, written by Staff Director Erin Conaton, provides examples of acceptable phrases, such as “the war in Iraq,” the “war in Afghanistan, “operations in the Horn of Africa” or “ongoing military operations throughout the world.”

Take a good look at the “acceptable phrases.” It is the first time the Democrats in Congress have put Afghanistan and Iraq on the same footing. I doubt that is because the Dems have suddenly decided Iraq was worth it after all.

Again, the Democratic candidates for President will never admit to this, but Pelosi and Reid kept their mouths shut about their plans on Iraq until after the gavels had been passed to them. Besides, odds are the Dems at this point probably do still support the Afghan war, but watch what happens to them if one of them ever takes office and comes face to face with European pusillanimity, the near-majority of Americans who have given up on the place, and Pakistan’s side deals with the Taliban. It won’t take long for any of them to seek the path of least resistance: a fig-leaf UN “peacekeeping” force as a cover, and an early withdrawal that makes the world’s elite happy, and endless scapegoating of George W. Bush. The temptation to drop the WBK War for “global warming”, “understanding Islam”, and “Palestinian peace” will be too much for them to resist.

After all, the Democrats have just dismissed the one term that unites most Americans about the enemy we face as a Bush “catch phrase.” Does anyone seriously think Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, or any of the rest of the Democratic field will, when push comes to shove, see Afghanistan as anything besides “Bush’s war”?