War Rumblings

I've got a bunch of war stories that I wanted to pass along to you.  First, let's start with some more good news: attacks in Iraq are at a 4-year low.  What we're seeing now is success that only the Democrats can reverse (if we let them).  Part of the reason is that we've seen a bunch of new military leaders capable of adapting to the vastly different type of warfare that a counter-insurgency requires.  History shows us that the leaders who can make such adaptations are the ones who win campaigns.  Fortunately, it appears we still have some very, very good men working their way up the ranks of the military.

That's good, because though the cost of the war has been very high, it is far less than the cost of failure (hat tip Heavy-Handed Politics).  Ed Feulner writes at CNS News that " It's one thing to put a price tag on something. It's another to figure out its cost."  As an example, some economists have estimated the cost of the war as high as $5 trillion, but that's based on the incorrect assumption that the war has no benefits.  Feulner offers some contradictory suggestions:

Last year the Pentagon estimated 19,000 enemy militants had been killed since 2003. That number has certainly risen since then. An additional 25,000 militants are in military custody. That's quite a few dangerous individuals no longer around to attack Americans.

Our military intervention also has allowed Iraqis to experience freedom, something they were systematically denied during the decades Saddam Hussein ruled their country.

Iraq is the first Middle Eastern country with a constitution written by its citizens. Iraq's government may be imperfect, but at least it has democratic legitimacy -- unlike neighboring Iran, Saudi Arabia or Syria.

In addition, the wars have given millions of women basic human rights they were denied by their oppressors. Under the Taliban, for example, Afghan women weren't allowed to go to school, let alone work or vote. Today women serve in Afghanistan's elected legislature.

Meanwhile, the Iraqi government is expanding its authority. Recently, Iraqi troops -- without help from Americans -- pushed into Baghdad's troubled Sadr City. They took control of the area without facing any significant resistance. That follows a similarly successful mission in Basra.

His conclusion:

According to researchers from Simon Fraser University in Canada, global terrorism is declining. Their Human Security Report Project found that fatalities from terrorist attacks have decreased 40 per cent since 2001. That's a very tangible benefit -- for America and for the world.

Yes, winning a war is expensive. But losing would be even more costly. And you can't put a price tag on true victory.

And, don't forget, Americans have an inherent lack of respect for losers.  That's why there have been literally dozens of unsuccessful attempts (by the Democrats) at ending the war prematurely - as much as the American people don't like the war, they like the idea of losing the war even less.  This is something the Democrats need to keep in mind, or it will come back to kick them in their own teeth.

Now let's take a look at some other areas around the world.  Iran continues to be problematic.  It appears they may be forming new bonds with another state sponsor of terrorism, Syria.  Regardless of their partnerships, they continue to accelerate their own nuclear program.  There's even more evidence out there that they'll have enough nuclear material for at least one bomb within the next year.  But it's all for peaceful purposes, of course.  Perhaps most disturbingly, even the Middle East fears a nuclear Iran.  If that happens, the balance of power in the entire region will be thrown out of whack, and there is no telling what Iran will do to bully its neighbors.  If you think tensions are high now, just wait until Iran proclaims they have nukes and then throws out a few demands or threatens to use them.  Or, how about this scenario: even though Al Qaeda has been decimated in Iraq, they're still out there.  Iran finally makes a nuclear bomb, then gives/sells it to Al Qaeda to hit America or Israel, achieving one of their own objectives while officially denying any involvement.  Al Qaeda wouldn't care one bit that Iran threw them under the bus because they've carried off an attack that makes 9/11 look piddly.  They'd be happy to take sole credit for it.  Far-fetched?  I think not, especially since the evidence is mounting that Iran and Al Qaeda have joined forces.

Outside of actual nations, there are plenty of other dangers out there.  For one thing, Right Truth shares that there have long been plans for naval jihad, and those plans will only become more likely if Barack Obama becomes President.  Another interesting tidbit from Right Truth is that Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff is making some statements that Hezbollah is one of the biggest dangers to America in the world today.

And back to Syria, where a shipment of missile parts was recently intercepted.  Michelle Malkin has the details:

I'm a big fan of the Proliferation Security Initiative, which I think will go down as a great diplomatic and security success of the Bush administration (and of John Bolton, who gets much of the credit for setting it up). The problem with the PSI is that it's supposed to be secret. When it works right, and a boatload of plutonium or guidance systems or rocket fuel gets pinched because a country called Crimestoppers, you and I don't even hear about it.

Occasionally, PSI news slips out. And today we have another one in the "win" column for the PSI:

"One example of its [the PSI's] success occurred in February 2007, when four nations represented in this room worked together to interdict equipment bound for Syria - equipment that could have been used to test ballistic missile components," Mr Hadley said at a conference to mark PSI's fifth anniversary.

"Interdictions like this one have been successful all over the world - and have stopped many shipments of sensitive materials destined for Iran, North Korea, and Syria," he said, providing no further details.

She asks the key question:

As I said, there are good reasons for keeping a lot of this stuff secret…but I'd sure like to know where these particular missile-testing doodads were coming from. Is it, for example, a country that Obama wants to open unconditional negotiations with?

Finally, it appears that the Church of England is throwing in the towel:

At the Church of England's official newspaper, an extraordinary (in a very bad way) editorial says Britain will be an Islamic state within 30 years.

If recent reports of trends in religious observance prove to be correct, then in some 30 years the mosque will be able to claim that, religiously speaking, the UK is an Islamic nation, and therefore needs a share in any religious establishment to reflect this. The progress of conservative Islam in the UK has been amazing, and it has come at a time of prolonged decline in church attendance that seems likely to continue.

This progress has been enthusiastically assisted by this government in particular with its hard-line multi-cultural dogma and willingness to concede to virtually every demand made by Muslims.

Boy, if that's not a scary thought, I don't know what is!  Again, I would point out that America generally follows the U.K., and this is another example of how we need to see what is happening across the pond and refuse to allow it to occur here at home.

So, there's your update on the war effort in Iraq and against terrorism in general.  Lots of good stuff, certainly things that responsible citizens need to know about.  This stuff will not go away; I firmly believe that the war against radical Islam (in the form of nations or terrorist groups) is the fight of our generation.  We will either win it or lose it.

There's my two cents.