A few weeks ago, I wrote in an essay:
… if we make the commitment to do so [confront Islamic fascism], it should be a full-fledged commitment. We should re-deploy troops that are performing non-military duty around the world, or who are assigned in non-essential areas, and place those troops in strategic areas along the Iraq border so as to stop the constant infiltration of insurgents and agitators from Iran and Syria.
As we did in Vietnam, we are fighting this war with one hand tied behind our backs. In this case we are feverishly bailing the boat while stubbornly refusing to seal the leak. A large number of American troop and Iraqi citizen fatalities are the simple result of the fact that we continue to allow Iranian and Syrian instigators, and equipment, to flow, virtually unfettered, into the war zone.
I also included those paragraphs in a few e-mails written to conservative friends who share my concern about the fact that we are losing troops in Iraq, in part because we are not allowing them to do what needs to be done to defeat the insurgency.
Following the president’s recent speech on his ‘new Iraq policy’, I received letters from these conservative friends, a few of which indicated a renewed optimism as a result of the president’s plans to ‘confront’ Iran.
I don’t share their optimism. On the contrary, I am disgusted with the president’s symbolic new ‘toughness’.
Over the past few years, in his several addresses to the nation on the administration’s various ‘new’ efforts to solve America's other major crisis -- the virtually uninterrupted flow of illegal immigrants across our southern border -- this president has consistently promised tough new initiatives, none of which have ever proved to be more than lip service, designed to quiet that part of the citizenry that neglects to keep its eyes open in order to determine whether actions follow words.
They (actions) rarely do (follow words) with this president. At least not on issues of national urgency -- not unless one considers state-provided prescription drugs, or federally-dictated mediocre educational standards, solutions to matters of national urgency.
And now he is making the same kinds of hollow promises in regard to the toxic Iranian influence in Iraq: seemingly tough, but carefully crafted, words that insure that this war on Islamic fascism will continue to be fought half-heartedly until he leaves the White House. And God only knows what new human-on-human atrocities the far-from-half-hearted enemy will accomplish in the interim.
The president’s ‘new’ plan seems to be to instruct our troops to attack the Iranian-inspired and Iranian-supplied insurgents only inside the borders of Iraq -- but to do so in larger numbers. Our troops still will be forbidden from attacking the source of the bloodthirst.
The president is still insisting on bailing the boat while ignoring the leak. How can we order our troops to win a war when we steadfastly refuse to allow them to confront the enemy?
In World War II, we did not define as victory engaging the enemy on the front lines. Even cutting off the enemy's supply lines was not sufficient for the Allied war planners of the forties. They were courageous and visionary enough to define their visual field so as to include the enemy’s munitions factories and command centers. They knew that, without doing so, the war either (1) would eventually be lost, or (2) would last significantly longer than warranted.
Now, sixty years later, when the American public’s patience and attention span are but a fraction of what they were then, and when a significant portion of their ‘leadership’ is nearly as determined to insure American defeat as is the enemy, #2 above is not an option. So #1 becomes significantly more likely.
As further evidence that the president plans to continue to wage a ‘semi-war’ … following his recent speech, when his National Security Advisor was asked whether the president is considering a military confrontation with Iran, he responded that the ‘issues’ with Iran must be solved ‘diplomatically.’
Were the killing fields of Cambodia an issue? How about the purposeful 'famine' in the Ukraine in the early thirties? Would Mr. Hadley consider those events 'issues' as well? Words that downplay human abominations and barbaric atrocities are indications of the intent of the speaker, and his handlers.
Those ‘issues’ to which this administration spokesman refers include Iran’s bloodthirsty determination to continue to kill American troops, to regularly blow up Iraqi civilians and infrastructure, and to insure that this war continues until the American government, and the American people, demand a complete withdrawal of American presence from the Middle East, the ultimate victory of brute barbaric force in Iraq, and the emboldening of jihadists the world over.
As if reiterating the administration’s dedication to handcuffing our troops, when being questioned by the House Armed Services Committee, Defense Secretary Gates stated that our troops are being ordered to focus on the pipeline that is supplying the insurgents in Iraq with Iranian explosives, and that new orders are ‘making it clear that those who are involved in activities that cost the lives of American soldiers are going to be subject to actions on the part of the United States inside Iraq.’
In other (less duplicitous) words, more of our troops are being ordered to bail the boat more feverishly. But they still will be forbidden to seal the leak. The counterinsurgency strategy continues to be written with blinders on -- blinders that inspire increased cause for celebration in Tehran, where the defeatist psychology of the American congressional 'leadership', and the malleable mindset of the American public, are studied and manipulated far more artfully than they are by anyone within the walls of the White House.
A president of courage, foresight, and backbone, unwilling to allow a leftist-controlled congress and/or media to play a role in his decisions as Commander-in-Chief, would be preparing to instruct American troops to fortify every inch of the Iran/Iraq border, or to cross the border into Iran, with orders to destroy all IEDs, and the Iranian jihadists who are intent on using them. But this president is planning to send twenty thousand additional troops into Iraq, to be stationed primarily in and around Baghdad, and condemned to wear the same handcuffs as the troops who are there now.
It’s about time the president adopted the same degree of courage and resolve as is possessed by those he is sending into harm’s way. If he does not soon do so, not only will a portion of the newly-shed blood of courageous, duty-bound Americans cover his hands, but the incremental destruction of the Western world will be the result of his continued unwillingness to confront evil at its source.