The Line Must Be Drawn

We've made too many compromises already; too many retreats. They invade our space and we fall back. They assimilate entire worlds and we fall back. Not again. The line must be drawn here! This far, no further!

-Captain Jean-Luc Piccard, Star Trek: First Contact

There is a line that must be drawn, one that our enemies cannot cross without suffering the consequences of their actions. That goes for actions domestically as well as overseas.

Quite a few people think that the war in Iraq is the wrong war at the wrong place and at the wrong time. Some think that yesterday's revelations that the US disrupted a terror cell in Miami somehow undermines the credibility of taking the fight to the terrorists overseas in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yet history is replete with examples of fighting enemies on their soil, who in turn seek to regain the offensive by trying to engage its opponent behind its lines. Sabotage is a common tactic in warfare. From the Illiad's recounting of the Trojan Horse to modern combat situations, subterfuge and actions behind enemy lines to disrupt communications, transportation links, etc. are part and parcel of military doctrine and strategy.

The Battle of the Bulge is a classic example of this strategy. The Allies were pushing their way towards Germany. Air strikes were being conducted against Germany proper on a daily basis and the Allies were grinding their way towards the German border. In response, the Germans made a daring attempt to crush the Allies on the Western Front in a plan to split the Allied lines in half and capture the Allies in a pincers move. It almost succeeded when Germans infiltrated behind Allied lines and caused all kinds of mayhem. The subterfuge worked perfectly, and while the airdrop was botched spreading the German paratroopers over a wide front, this mistake on the Germans' part actually made Allied Command think that there was a major air assault in progress and sent troops to bolster the rearguard, taking troops away from the front where the oncoming German armor was headed.

Today, we see terrorists operating outside the laws of war, hiding among civilian populations, and rejecting basic decency by purposefully using civilians as human shields from which to attack US, Iraqi, and coalition forces. Terrorism, such as bus or subway bombings, or hijackings are simply a tactic to project power and to spread fear and attack weak points in the hope of winning a victory unattainable on the battlefield.

Taking the fight to our enemies is the only prudent step. Failing to fight on the battlefields of our choice means that we'll be forced to fight ever more battles on the fields chosen by our enemies - which often means terrorist attacks on our own cities and those of our allies.

Iraq is a killing field - not for our soldiers but for al Qaeda, as repeated intercepted communications and captured documents reveal. Zarqawi (now at room temperature), Zawahiri, and even Osama himself have all noted the problems in Iraq and are trying to rally their forces to attack the US elsewhere (Darfur, Somolia, or even Pakistan) - if only to give al Qaeda in Iraq a breather to regroup and rearm.

Al Qaeda calculated that the US would not only get bogged down in Iraq, but that the US would lose the will to fight sooner than al Qaeda would run out of terrorists to throw at us. They'd seen the US cut and run in the past and believed that they would do so again. That was a huge miscalculation, perhaps aided by the media's ongoing pessimism about how well things are going in Iraq. [ed: could the media actually have done a great service to US forces by giving terrorists a false impression? No chance - see below]

The terrorists seem to have lots of help these days from the media, as the latest NYT expose on another US national security program to thwart terrorist financing through the international banking system. One that is completely legal, has worked well in the past, and was quite effective in figuring out terrorist financing patterns. Patterico has a wide ranging examination of the subject. We continue to witness media leaders like the New York Times decide what should be considered national secrets, and what should be released to the public - and hence to our enemies. Unveiling eavesdropping programs and other measures designed to obtain critical intel on our enemies is par for the course for the New York Times, and they truly believe that they are the new men in black. Above it. Over it. Outside the law altogether. They're the ones that make the final decision, and if the White House insists on holding the story, all the more reason to push it on page 1.

While ire should be directed at the Times, I think the real anger should be correctly placed on those individuals who are leaking the details of these programs. They are violating federal law at every opportunity, and have a willing partner at the major media outlets. What happens if the terrorists manage to exploit the knowledge that the papers have so graciously provided and carry out a terrorist act that would have otherwise been prevented had the terrorists not learned of them?

Imagine had the NYT published news stories in 1943 and 1944 regardline Ultra and Enigma, the codes that the Allies had broken enabling them to intercept communciations? Or maybe outline the importance of Navajo language in the Pacific theater for US forces? That kind of behavior would not have been tolerated then, so why is it being tolerated by anyone now?

Others noting the media madness in releasing classified and sensitive information: Instapundit, who relays the serious damage done by revealing this program. Michelle Malkin has a huge roundup of reaction against the ongoing onslaught of classified information leaked to the NYT and other papers. Others providing news and views: John Hawkins, Bizzyblog, AJ Strata, Macranger, Stop the ACLU, Group Intel, The Anchoress, Flopping Aces, Pundit Guy, Gina Cobb, Blue Crab Boulevard, Hot Air, Sister Toldjah, Confederate Yankee, Ed Morrissey, and Kim at Wizbang.