The War We Forgot To Fight

Saul Singer has an interesting editorial on JPost.com, and I pretty much fully agree with him (except he refers to the current war on terror as WW IV, while I think its only WW III -- Lawhawk would agree with him and we promise to bring that debate to you in the future.)

In the Cold War cycle of this pattern, we were spared the full force of a potential World War III because the wars were fought on a proxy level (Vietnam, Afghanistan), and eventually the Soviet Union imploded.

Now we are in World War IV, as Norman Podhoretz has pointed out, between what Tony Blair aptly calls Reactionary Islam and the rest of us. The first striking thing about this war is that we've managed to fall asleep at a relatively late stage of it.

This war actually began before the last one was over, with the Iranian revolution and the taking hostage of the US embassy staff in 1979. The rise of Soviet-backed terrorism, including by the PLO against Israelis; the drain of proxy wars, and the Iran crisis all fed each other. An American resurgence of confidence in the 1980s turned the tide in WWW III and, by the way, put WWW IV on hold - but all it took was for the West to rest on its laurels in the 1990s for WWW IV to resume where it had left off.

During the 1990s, Osama bin Laden not only took American diplomats hostage, he blew them up. The US responded mainly by turning its embassies into fortresses. This finally led to the full war phase, starting with 9/11 and continuing through the
toppling of radical regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq.

But then we stopped.

America, though it occupied and governed Iraq, was so loath to be seen to be "intervening" in Iraqi politics that it turned a blind eye to massive Iranian support for radical forces. Iraqis, and the region, saw that Iran supported its friends and threatened its enemies inside Iraq, while the US failed to do either until it was too late.

As the security situation deteriorated, Iraqis made impressive strides toward democracy, for which Americans also deserve credit. If Iran and its vassal, Syria, have failed to derail Iraq's political progress, they have succeeded in something no less important: derailing America's prosecution of the global war.

Since 9/11, America had always had an offensive objective. First it was Afghanistan, then it was Iraq. When Saddam was captured, Libya also fell into line, which was a nice bonus for toppling the regime in Iraq. But despite what Bush said on the USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1, 2003 - "Any outlaw regime that has ties to terrorist groups and seeks or possesses weapons of mass destruction is a grave danger to the civilized world - and will be confronted" - Iraq became the end, not a step, in a war that had not yet been won.

This is an important point. The War on Terror is not just a war against Bin Laden, it is a war in which our very fundamental way of life is being attacked. It is not being waged in Afghanistan and Iraq and Lebanon, but in our home cities, in New York City, in London, Madrid, Paris. It is being fought against an enemy that is bent on the destruction of all things not Islam, and considers death a victory.

It is most scary that this war will continue for many generations, as Islamic children are taught that they need to continue this war.

In Tuesday s Wall Street Journal, Bernard Lewis cited Ayatollah Khomeini quoted from an 11th-grade Iranian textbook: "If the world-devourers [i.e., the infidel powers] wish to stand against our religion, we will stand against their whole world and will not cease until the annihilation of all them... Either we shake one another s hands in joy at the victory of Islam in the world, or all of us will turn to eternal life and martyrdom. In both cases, victory and success are ours."

In this view, apocalypse, including the deaths of millions of one's own citizens, is not neutral, it is good. In the fevered imagination of Ahmadinejad s regime, it will bring the return of the Hidden Imam and the ultimate triumph of good (Islam) over evil (everything else).

The editorial continues by stating that G. W. Bush is in a position to successfully fight this war.

It is assumed that Bush is powerless to fight this war because he is unpopular. The opposite is the case: He is unpopular because he is seen to be fighting unsuccessfully.

It is also assumed that American people are in no mood for conflict, and if they were, Bush lacks the credibility to lead them. I know this sounds nuts, but I disagree, on both counts.

It is not too late for Bush to describe the nature of the Iranian threat and lay out a coherent, three-pronged approach to dealing with it: draconian sanctions backed by the threat of military force and support for the Iranian people.

I guess Mr. Singer is suggesting that Bush's unpopularity marks the perfect time to do what is right, not popular. I agree. The right thing is not always the popular thing. Bush is a lame duck President. Cheney is not going to seek the top seat. If Bush does the right thing, takes a hard line stance against Iran (and North Korea for that matter), the political fallout would not ultimately rest on him. However, if he is correct, history may be very kind to him (as opposed to modern day political science.)

Moreover, the Republicans can also take advantage of a strong stance against terror in the 2008 elections. McCain would have the credibility to steer this Country through war and turmoil and would be believable when he claims he could lead this country. Who could the Democrats put up against him? Hillary? Murtha? McCain has more political credibility when it comes to foreign policy and domestic security than either Hillary or Murtha.

Remember, the war against terror, whether in London, NYC, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, etc., needs to be won by us. The alternative is not going to pretty!