It was a wickedly simple strategy. It still is. Killer becomes accuser, cop gets crucified, killer walks.
Brentwood the stage then, Baghdad the stage now.
But the play is the same.
Every horror in Iraq today – killing, kidnapping, refugee – was more horrid under Saddam. There was no hope. There was only Saddam.
“I offer my soul to God as a sacrifice, and if He wants, He will send it to heaven with the martyrs”
No matter that his Iraq was more savage than Darfur and rivaled Rwanda.
No matter that thousands fled in terror from him; thousands died grotesquely because of him; thousands of children shriveled into corpses malnourished due to him; rape rooms screamed to the delight of him; bodies twisted, tortured on orders from him; power, marshlands, minds were corroded because of him: so Saddam could be esteemed as supreme, worshipped even more than the God he professed to adore while he whored Iraq.
He would have been even more horrid had he still reigned.
Freed from sanctions, fueled by cash, rebuilding weapons he was determined to gain again – and with Iran arming next door – Saddam would have shown Ahmadinejad how to make the world tremble.
Stories gloated about what Iraq Study Group inspector Charles Duelfer did not find in Iraq after Saddam fell. And junked what he did find.
“Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a CW [Chemical Warfare] effort when sanctions were lifted and conditions were judged favorable”
“ISG judges that Iraq maintained the expertise and equipment necessary for R&D of bacteria, fungi, viruses, and toxins that could be used as BW [Biological Warfare] agents up until Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) in March 2003″
“Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability-in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks-but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.”
“He wanted nuclear weapons to guarantee his legacy and to compete with powerful and antagonistic neighbors; to him, nuclear weapons were necessary for Iraq to survive.”
“The Iraqis never intended to meet the spirit of the UN resolutions. Outward acts of compliance belied a covert desire to resume WMD activities.”
“The Regime sought a favorable relationship with France because France was influential as a permanent member of the UN Security Council and was in a good position to help Iraq with lifting sanctions.”
“as part of his efforts to escape sanctions, Saddam launched a vigorous campaign to shape international opinion. The Regime drew attention to everything from poor sanitation to the absence of electric power; the main effort, however, focused on the impact of sanctions upon children, especially those under five years of age.”
For twelve years Saddam stalled, dodged, deceived. UN inspectors proved he had built Weapons of Mass Destruction, demanded proof he no longer had them, ordered him under international law to reveal everything, destroy nothing, turn all – weapons, precursors, plans, plants, documents, equipment – over to UN inspectors.
And received only lie after lie after lie sworn to be truth.
Not one of the UN inspection chiefs – not Rolf Ekeus, not Richard Butler, not Hans Blix, not Mohamed ElBaradei – could prove he no longer had prohibited weapons. Nor did they need to: it was for Saddam – and only Saddam – to convince the world he had nothing.
Colin Powell put it bluntly:
“The resolution does not call for them to go snooping all over Iraq to see what they can find; the resolution puts the burden not on the inspectors but on Saddam Hussein to come forward, complete declaration, full cooperation, and telling us everything that has been going on in Baghdad and throughout Iraq, lo these many years, with respect to weapons of mass destruction.”
Instead, Saddam used children as pawns, sympathy pawns to lift sanctions – not for the children – but so he could rearm. Not a single child mattered to him – sacrifices all on his altar to himself. His charade mattered most. Saddam, short order cook ready to fire up, would reign. And be remembered. Uday might succeed him, Qusay might: but neither would be Saddam.
Nebuchadnezzar. Saladin. Saddam. Gods walking the face of the earth. But only Saddam would have weapons that could destroy the earth.
His would-be successors would be even worse.
They too kill – but for here-and-now power, using religion as a mask, suckering those also without soul to die crying “God is great.”
As they blast children into scraps of flesh, tidbits of bone.
Cannibals, devouring even their own, to rule.
Saddam used sympathy to get what he sought. His would-be successors use “civil war.”
There is no civil war in Iraq. There is no sectarian war in Iraq. There is a power war in Iraq to see who rules – and how.
Al Qaeda would rule as the Taliban ruled Afghanistan. It would use Iraq as Al Qaeda used Afghanistan: to attack, fueled this time by 115 billion barrels of oil. At $60 dollars a barrel, what weapons couldn’t it buy?
Al Qaeda is pledged to get WMD. Pledged to use WMD. Pledged to destroy the United States. It cares nothing about life. It cares only about death.
Saddamists would rule as Saddam did: ruthlessly, vengefully, destroying all who brought Saddam down, jeered as he hung, paraded at his death, mocked his name.
Shia fanatics would rule as Iran is ruled. America – Satan – would know Hell. This earth does not matter. Its end does not matter. Death to America matters.
Seventy percent of Iraqi voters instead sought peace, still seek peace. They understand what the 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference – Sunni and Shia both – meant when it issued
“a reminder to all Muslim in Iraq of the immense gravity of killing others Muslims, which is considered by Islam as a crime against humanity.”
The OIC – “Muslim scholars and the religious establishments in Iraq, Shiite or Sunni combined” - went on:
“every Iraqi will be facing his responsibilities towards his Creator, his faith, his homeland, and his people, if he opts to get himself involved in the sectarian killing, an act which is totally abhorred by the religion”
The OIC’s Secretary-General further stressed
“this august gathering of eminent Muslim scholars and jurisprudential authorities are determined to put an end to the bloodshed, the killing of innocent human beings, the spreading of evil and wickedness on the earth, the terrorization of the innocent, and filling Iraq with scores of thousands of orphans, widows, and women dispossessed of their children or husbands.”
He quoted Ayatollah Sistani saying
“what exist in Iraq was not sectarian strife between Iraqi Shiites and Muslim but political crisis”
and reminding all Iraqis
“to stop all forms of violence against each other so that scenes of car bombs, indiscriminate assassinations, forced expulsions and other tragic scenes will disappear forever.”
Ayatollah Sheikh Al Yaqubi proclaimed:
“The violence being witnessed in Iraq is not sectarian as Shiites and Sunnis had up till now lived as brothers loving one another, but largely political championed by the politicians”
Ayatollah Sheikh Bashir Al-Najafi adamantly stated
“the root of bloodshed in Iraq is not sectarian but rather political differences.”
The Secretary-General of the Commission of Muslim Scholars declared:
“What is taking place in Iraq is not a civil war; and those who claim so are indeed doing injustice to this country.”
Another declaration reinforced this stance:
“These fundamental principles apply equally to the Sunnis and the Shiites without exception..”
“it is incumbent upon all Muslims to adopt caution and vigilance against all attempts to sow division among them, break their ranks, or incite sedition, strife, and hate to corrupt their divine spiritual bonds with each other.”
“The Sunnite and Shiite scholars support all efforts aimed at achieving comprehensive national reconciliation in Iraq”
The press, of course, printed nothing of that, preferring instead their spin of civil/sectarian war. There is no civil war, no sectarian war in Iraq. There is arson. And the arsonist is Al Qaeda.
Its spectacular attacks and suicide bombs are Al Qaeda’s version of “Shock and Awe” geared to goad Shias to forget their faith and attack, Sunnis to attack back.
Which is why Al Qaeda destroyed the Golden Mosque in Samarra just as it had the Twin Towers in New York.
The Towers were known by Americans, but they were not revered by Americans. The mosque was revered by, sacred to, Shias. Which is why Al Qaeda destroyed it. And gleefully watched as Shias erupted against Sunnis, Sunnis erupted back. Precisely as Al Qaeda had planned.
Twin Towers: Al Qaeda brought them down. Twin Powers – the US and the Soviet Union – Al Qaeda would bring them down, just as it did the Twin Buddhas in Afghanistan. September 11 was one step to defeating America; February 22 – George Washington’s birthday – was a second step, the day the Samarra mosque fell, digging a pit for America to fall again.
Al Qaeda would have the world believe Sunnis and Shias are vengeful all, enemies all to the death. No matter that tribe after Iraqi tribe is mixed, with Sunnis and Shias intermarried. No matter that Iraqi Kurds are Sunni and Shia and at peace with each other. No matter that Kurdish Sunni outnumber Iraqi Arab Sunni. No matter that Iraq’s interim president, Sunni Ghazi Al Yawar, said while president:
“We resent being called Shiites and Sunnis and Kurds the same way you resent somebody come to you and say, Are you Catholic or Protestant? Are you a Christian or a Jew? We are all Iraqis. We want to melt into the Iraqi identity. This is very important to us.
“These expressions were imported to Iraq… Iraqis are the last people to think about civil unrest. We would be the sole losers.”
“My 6-year-old nephew called me from Mosul and he said, Congratulations, uncle. So you are the president…. So you going to kill 50% of the Iraqi society? And I said, My God, how heavy the weight on our shoulders is. It’s not to rehabilitate, it’s to re-create a nation.”
Terrorists – Al Qaeda, Saddamists, Shia fanatics – create chaos, confusion, frustration so that America throws up its hands, throws down its arms, and leaves – leaving Iraq to them.
If America had set out to conquer Iraq, it could have done so long ago, crushing Iraq as it did Japan, leveling Iraq as it did Germany. That is not what Operation Iraqi Freedom sought. It’s not what these four years have been about.
“Conquer” Iraq and it would have become to Arabs what Israel is now; but worse. An endless river of jihadists would have rushed to Iraq as they did to Afghanistan when the Soviets tried to conquer it. While others seeped into America to finish what they started on September 11.
Instead, the US set out to do what’s never been done before: simultaneously topple a tyrant, aid in reconstituting a nation, help in rebuilding that country. The Marshall Plan didn’t begin until three years after Germany fell from a six-year war and took two more years to complete: eleven years from war to reconstruction.
Iraq has had a third as much time.
American success brought on the savagery in Iraq today: Saddam dead, Uday dead, Qusay dead, Zarqawi dead, the deck of cards shredded, constitution endorsed by an enormous majority, parliament seated and legislating on topics no other Arab country would touch, prime minister taking charge, schools and clinics and water and electricity and commerce rising.
Would-be successors see Iraq slipping out of their grasp. And so they attack.
No wonder then that Central Command General John Abizaid said to the US Senate:
“when I come to Washington I feel despair. When I’m in Iraq with my commanders, when I talk to our soldiers, when I talk to the Iraqi leadership, they are not despairing. They believe that they can move the country toward stability with our help. And I believe that.”
But no one heard that. Or this.
“when I go to the field, the soldiers are uniformly confident about their ability to face this enemy; make Iraq, Afghanistan, whatever area they happen to be operating in, better; defeat the terrorists wherever they find them, and they all understand it’s going to take time.”
Nor did anyone heard him add:
“It’s very interesting that we testified on Capitol Hill for about nine hours and we take the nine-second sound bites out that seem to get the most headlines.”
Who heard General Peter Chiarelli when he said,
“when I was over here in my first year, the issues of sectarianism were something that were possibly below the surface, but when you talked to Iraqis, they considered themselves Iraqis. And there wasn’t a single situation that I remember in my first year where they pointed to the difference between Sunni and Shi’a when you went down into the neighborhoods. When you went down into the neighborhoods in Baghdad, where I was the first time, you found mixed neighborhoods of Sunnis and Shi’as who had lived together for many, many years. And quite frankly, neighbors didn’t know what the sect of each other was.”
He also noted:
“I think the Golden Mosque bombing was absolutely critical. In my two years here, there’s not been a single more definitive event that seemed to have changed the way Iraqis looked at themselves and looked at their country.”
And Al Qaeda, Johnnie-on-the-spot, smiled.
Who heard British Lt. General Graeme Lamb, Deputy Commander of Multinational Force-Iraq – just last week – say:
“What I see right now is a huge commitment by the Iraqis, politically and militarily, to the endeavor we’re now engaged upon. In short, I still believe we can do this.”
“I see a commitment with this government that I have not seen before. And don’t forget, they’ve only been in power for, what, some 240 days. It took you 11 years to write your Constitution, and we’re still trying to write ours.”
“I see the Sunni community looking towards to come back into the political process. I see this government, this prime minister dealing with the militias. We are judged by our actions in this world, and I do see them taking the right actions.”
Then why do Americans – by the thousands – re-enlist and return to Iraq after they’ve served in Iraq? Why do thousands more volunteer to serve knowing they might head to Iraq? Why is Cindy Sheehan dying for attention, while her son only died to serve?
How many Americans know that, before the First Cavalry arrived, Sadr City had 61% unemployment, no electricity or drinking water and sewage two-feet deep? That 1st Cav conducted over 800 engineering projects, constructed 600 schools, hired 20,000 Iraqis, pumped millions in the economy – and that Cindy Sheehan’s son was part of that force?
That he enlisted, re-enlisted, chose to volunteer – and died – rescuing fellow troops so they could get back to rebuilding?
For the press, the answer is simple: If you build it, they’ll be bored.
Sadr, Sharpton: One.
Iraq will soon see what Prime Minister Al-Maliki already knows: Sadr needs Maliki more than Maliki needs Sadr.
Sadr heard his elders preach and scold him indirectly. He sees his factions split and knows he’s losing his political and military base. Without followers he is nothing, just as is Sharpton without cameras.
Sadr is Maliki’s Joe McCarthy. Truman urged Eisenhower to berate the senator; Ike chose to let him ruin himself by himself. He did.
Sadr will, too.
Saddam no longer rules Iraq;
but the ghost of Johnnie Cochran does: killer becomes accuser, cop gets crucified, killer walks.
Frame the debate, and you can frame anyone.
A 1938 alert from Der Spiegel:
This essay is an excerpt of Henryk M. Broder’s book “Hurra, Wir Kapitulieren,” (“Hurray! We’re Capitulating”) published by Wolf Jobst Siedler Verlag in 2006. The book spent a number of weeks atop the DER SPIEGEL bestseller list.
The controversy over the 12 Muhammad cartoons that were published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in September 2005 and led to worldwide protests and unrest among Muslims was merely a taste of what is to come, a dress rehearsal for the kinds of disputes Europe can expect to face in the future if it does not rethink its current policy of appeasement. As was the case in the 1930s, when Czechoslovakia was sacrificed in the interest of peace under the Munich Agreement — a move that ultimately did nothing to prevent World War II — Europeans today also believe that an adversary, seemingly invincible due to a preference for death over life, can be mollified by good behavior, concessions and submission.
If you have been wondering why we call them 1938 alerts, now you know.
“The West should desist from engaging in all provocations that produce feelings of debasement and humiliation,” says psychoanalyst Horst-Eberhard Richter. “We should show greater respect for the cultural identity of Muslim countries. … For Muslims, it is important to be recognized and respected as equals.” In Richter’s view, what the Muslims need is “a partnership of equals.”
But Richter neglects to describe what this partnership might look like. Does achieving such equality mean that we should set up separate sections for women on buses, as is the custom in Saudi Arabia? Should the marrying age for girls be reduced to 12, as is the case in Iran? And should death by stoning be our punishment for adultery, as Shariah law demands? What else could the West do to show its respect for the cultural identity of Islamic countries? Would it be sufficient to allow Horst-Eberhard Richter to decide whether, for example, a wet T-shirt contest in a German city rises to a level of criminal provocation that could cause the Muslim faithful in Hyderabad to feel debased and humiliated?
The discussion over which provocations WE should put an end to so that THEY do not feel upset inexorably leads to the realm of the absurd.
Should devout Jews be entitled to demand that non-Jews give up pork? And should they have the power to impose sanctions if their demands are not met? Can a Hindu in India run amok because the Dutch do not view cows as sacred beings?
And more to the point, why don’t they?
“Nowadays acts of terrorism are not committed for their own sake, but in the name of an ideology one could call Nazi-Islamism,” Romanian-American author Norman Manea told the German daily Die Welt in March 2004. The only difference, in Manea’s view, is “that this ideology invokes a religion, whereas the Nazis were mythical without being religious.” Manea believes that what he calls a “World War III” has already begun. “The Europeans are putting off the recognition — as they did in the 1930s — of the tremendous tragedy that awaits them and that has, in fact, already arrived.”
Nutters with nukes unveil tomorrow’s news today:
From A.P. U.N. says Iran plans nuclear development
Iran expects to start installing thousands of centrifuges in an underground facility next month, the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency said Friday. The installation would pave the way to large-scale uranium enrichment, a potential way of making nuclear weapons.
Iran is apologetic– oh, I am sorry, Iran is apoplectic.From Reuters International Atomic Energy Agency’s Iran section head must go: Tehran
Iran, cranking up a war of nerves with the West, has demanded the removal of the official running U.N. nuclear inspections, diplomats said on Friday.
From CNN ElBaradei calls for timeout on Iran nuclear program
International Atomic Energy Agency head Mohammed ElBaradei said Friday he was calling for a timeout regarding the Iranian nuclear issue, hoping that talks on the matter can resume.
A time out? And maybe if they tell us what we want to hear we can give them a lollipop.
It may not be a well-know fact about Muslims that they believe dogs make MUslim men religiously unclean, or at least their saliva, but as every dog owner knows, if you’ve got a dog, you’ve got the saliva. As a result, Muslims aren’t crazy about dogs. Here in Dearborn the lack of barking dogs doesn’t make Muslim neighborhoods noticeably quieter, as there are still plenty of tricked out SUVs going up and down with their bass boosters thumping, and lots of tooting horns in the streets by way of saying howdy do.
The recently-discovered initiative by Muslim cabbies at the Minneapolis-St Paul Airport who’ve been refusing passengers carrying alcohol (also disliked intensely by the Prophet) also includes cabbies saying no to passengers with dogs.
And not just little foo-foos in leopard-skin purses, but service dogs, the kind that blind folks and some other disabled people depend on to get around.
The problem with refusing to let Leader Dogs ride is that refusing to reasonably accommodate disabled persons is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and perhaps state law in Minnesota as well—and reasonable accommodations have always been understood to include allowing service dogs into banks, restaurants, buses, cabs, and onto elevators, Even before the ADA or other disabilities-rights laws, the accommodation of service dogs was widely recognized by Americans just as a commonsense mandate of decency.
So, in the spirit of having pushed the envelope on this one as far as its going to stretch, CAIR’s Ibrahim Hooper, (whose vision for America includes the eventual imposition of sharia law), has issued a fatwa pronouncing that, “In the case of guide dogs, the need to accommodate handicapped individuals should outweigh the discomfort Muslims might feel in having dogs in their vehicles.”
Hooper’s fatwa was a counter-fatwa to the 2006 one from Muslim American Society of Minnesota putting the Metropolitan Airport Commission on notice that Muslim taxi drivers are forbidden from carrying passengers with alcohol so as to avoid “cooperating in sin according to Islam.” (And speaking of separation of church and state, what do you want to bet there was no Christmas crèche on airport property last year?)
As it is, the Muslim cabbies have been getting away with this discrimination for several years, it taking national publicity to get the airport commissioners to bestir themsleves. All this time airport authorities could have investigated passenger complaints and suspended the licenses of cabbies known to be breaking the law, but I’m sure they hated the thought of tangling with Muslim leaders over it. It’s just easier to ignore the rights of passengers complaining about being refused cab service on airport property.
Hooper says there can be a compromise. But if by “compromise,” he means that Muslim cabbies will continue to be allowed to disobey the ADA and refuse passengers with guide dogs, I don’t think that will happen. Nor will the Muslim cabbies get themselves a class-dispensation from the ADA based upon their religious prejudices against dog saliva and wine bottles.
Being a cab driver is a licensed privilege, and cab drivers have a duty not to refuse passengers for discriminatory reasons. If you can’t hack that (pun intended), find another line of work. The airport commission has the licensing authority, and will be liable for damages in discrimination lawsuits from disabilities-rights groups if they continue licensing cabbies who intentionally discriminate. Who knows, maybe even the duty-free shops may want in on those suits, too, since they’re the ones selling the packaged spirits.
CAIR’s rare willingness to “compromise” is a sign that Hooper knows he’s on the losing side on this one. Yes, the commissioners have turned a blind eye (no pun intended) to the abuse before now, but I think what’s really driving this are the commission’s risk managers screaming about the municipality’s lawsuit exposure.
But isn’t the real lesson here that this flagrant abuse of the law tolerated for years by the airport authorities would never have been addressed if the issue hadn’t attracted national press attention?
By Vel Nirtist
“As I observed their rancorous and loud disagreements in trying to come to a decision, I pitied the nation that was denied God’s direct guidance, and thought how blessed was my own land, in living by the laws given by God Himself.”
So wrote in a letter home an 18-century Moslem traveler who found himself in London and went to see one of the British capital’s main attractions – the proceedings of English parliament.
I do not remember the title of the book in which I read this quote, obviously given here from memory, a book pulled from a used-bookstore shelf and opened at a random page very many years ago. But I do remember that I laughed at that gullible traveler, closed the book and put it right back on the shelf.
In the hindsight, it is clear that I laughed far too soon, because this is not a laughing matter at all. As shown by the Iran experience, and as we are now finding out in Iraq, such sentiments are still firmly rooted in the Middle East, and are the main obstacle to the spread of democracy in that part of the world.
Why are the Muslims not convinced that democracy is right for them? Because that gullible traveler was essentially right. Theocracy – which in Greek means “the rule by God” – is by far the very best possible form of governance.
Consider this: when God rules, is there a need for an army? Of course not – God provides perfect protection, and no conceivable enemy can possibly withstand His strength. Should one worry about job, or health insurance? Obviously not, when it is God who provides shelter, sustenance, and cure.
But of course, for all that to happen, God does need to be right at the helm. Humans are far from adequate substitutes to God, no matter how grand are the titles that they bear. Being called an “ayatollah” by the fellow-humans does not exempt one from that rule, does not put one in the same class with God.
Ayatollahs not only lack God’s powers to protect, feed, shelter and cure, but their knowledge of God’s views on the adequate political and social organization of society and on norms of individual conduct of its members is unreliable at best. What they pass for “knowledge of God’s will” is unproved and, for that matter, unprovable, and so is at the very best doubtful. For reasons that have to do with fundamental structure of cognition, no one, ayatollahs themselves including, can possibly know whether their rulings are in line with the will of God, or not. In fact no one, an ayatollah or not, can possibly know whether Mohammed was a prophet, or whether Koran was God’s word – nor can anyone even know which reading of the Koran conforms to Mohammed’s original intentions. What is the true Islam? There are plenty of opinions, all of them felt quite strongly – as Iraq’s Shia and Sunni Moslems remind us daily, by daily blowing each other up. Which side – if any – is right, it is impossible to know.
The West learned the hard way – from a very similar experience of her own religious wars that ravaged Europe centuries ago, that the matters of religion should better be left to the believers themselves, not decided by the state, and that the clerics should be denied the use of state-owned means of coercion for the purposes of spiritual instruction. Moslems should better start thinking in that direction too.
Until it becomes possible to know God’s will with absolute certainty – or until we are borne from this abode beyond the great divide, to enjoy God’s paradise in the world-to-come – theocracy is impossible, and the old rule of “salus populi suprema lex” has to be followed, with the path to fulfilling the “supreme law” of the “well-being of the people” ascertainable only by the people themselves. Koran or no Koran, mankind – Iraq and Iran including – is better off having the mosque and state completely separated, and being rid of the self-deceiving, idolatrous and blasphemous Iran-style un-theocratic government by the ayatollahs who usurped people’s place at the helm – and for that matter, God’s place too. Sticking to democracy, no matter how loud, rancorous, and messy it may be, is far better than to live under the godless Iranian un-theocracy.
The pity that the eighteenth-century Muslim visitor to London felt for the merely democratic England was very much misplaced. In the final analysis, he got it utterly wrong: his native land was not ruled by God, nor was England deprived of His blessing. He should have learned from the democratic experience of the English, and brought it back to his native land. We would all have been far better off today, had he done the right thing back than.
But he did not, and the task still needs to be done. God having given this planet for mere people to rule, democracy is the way.
Vel Nirtist writes on the role of religion in fostering terrorism. He is author of “The Pitfall of Truth: Holy War, its Rationale and Folly. His blog is at http://www.rootoutterrorism.com
That the UK had become, by 2000, the European center for the promotion, recruitment and financing of Islamic terror and extremism is not disputed. The debate over how this came to be is ongoing. A bold attempt to answer the question was made this past summer with the release of the groundbreaking book Londonistan by Melanie Phillips, an award-winning journalist at the UK’s Daily Mail. On January 16, Phillips spoke to an audience of more than 250 at a JINSA event in the Detroit suburb of West Bloomfield.
Phillips said she wrote Londonistan to rouse Britain out of what she argued was a palpable state of denial over the jihadist “war” being waged against it. The story began in 1979 with the Islamic revolution in Iran. It was then that leading elements within radical Muslim circles began to believe that restoration of the Islamic caliphate was indeed within their grasp and set about achieving this goal.
Phillips informed her audience that it took less than two decades for Britain’s transformation into the “European center for the promotion, recruitment and financing of Islamic terror and extremism.” Britain secured this dubious distinction via a perfect storm of two seemingly disparate developments: a severe relaxation of immigration standards in the 1980s and 1990s during which the UK received a large influx of radical Islamists and immigrants susceptible to the message of radical Islam and a widespread repudiation of the supremacy of British cultural and social norms. This systematic undermining of the values, laws and traditions that defined what it meant to be British began in the 1980s and Islamist elements moved eagerly and rapidly into the resulting social and cultural vacuum.
Phillips cited some alarming facts to illustrate the rise of fundamentalist Islam in the UK.
Despite these facts, many Britons have convinced themselves that terrorist attacks in the UK are a reaction to anti-Muslim bias, Phillips contended. The terrorist elements in Britain are explained as disaffected youths driven to violence by racism and poverty. Such assertions are ludicrous, Phillips declared. The London subway bombers were young, British-born men well integrated into their surrounding communities. Their economic status ranged from solidly middle class to wealthy.
The reason such Islamic extremists engage in acts of terrorism is quite simply that “terror works,” Phillips believes. This was, in fact, the reason offered by Dhiran Barot, a British citizen, upon his 2004 arrest in England for plotting with at least two other British citizens to attack financial institutions in New York, New Jersey and Washington, DC.
The state of denial evident in Britain extends to Western Europe, the United States and Israel. “Defeatism, appeasement and cultural collapse are at the root of the problem,” Phillips observed. Traditional British values have been hollowed out and in their places fundamentalist Islam took up residence. As a result, multiculturalism is seen as more legitimate than national identity and supranational organizations like the United Nations and the European Court of Human Rights are seen as more legitimate than British governing bodies. So, Phillips said, terror victims blame themselves and/or try to explain away terrorist behavior as aberrant, random acts perpetrated by “copy cats” emulating what they see going on in other parts of the world. A “1930s-style appeasement” is the result where logic is turned on its head as the British public desperately latches onto specious explanations for these horrific events.
Phillips said that many in the UK contend that once the Israel-Palestinian impasse is settled, Islamist terror will cease to exist. She described how the entirety of Britain’s non-Muslim population is divided and that even among those who acknowledge the threat posed by jihadist Islam, most prefer to stay silent. Even in “Middle Britain,” the equivalent of the American “red states,” isolationism is seen as the most effective response to jihadi terror.
Not all Muslims are involved in terrorism, Phillips took great pains to emphasize. She pointed out that many of the most troublesome Muslim immigrants to the UK were in fact expelled from their countries of origin including Saudi Arabia because of their radicalism. Phillips pointed out that the more moderate countries with Muslim majorities understand the dangers posed by jihadist elements in their population better than Britons. They recognize, for example, women who wear the veil are making a political statement that they are separate from society. While many in Great Britain wring their hands over whether or not to ban veils in certain circumstances, Tunisia and Turkey have already done so, she noted.
Phillips did find cause for hope, however. The West, including Great Britain, is waking up slowly to the threat, she believes. The watershed moment was not the infamous July 7, 2005 bombings but the foiled transatlantic plot to blow up 12 airliners en route to the United States from Britain in August 2006. Britons could no longer ignore the fact that this plan was far too sophisticated to have been hatched by disaffected youths enraged by their lot in life. The plot forced the public to confront the reality that homegrown terror attacks were not random acts of violence, but rather a war against the country. Phillips related that days after the foiled airliner plot, 38 “moderate” Muslim groups in the UK demanded that the government alter its foreign policy immediately as Britain’s Iraq and Israel policies were encouraging terrorist attacks. The British public responded to the veiled threat with deserved outrage.
Phillips, who was moved to cautious optimism by this “slow change toward sanity” on the part of her country, closed her address by recounting a December 2006 statement by Prime Minister Tony Blair: “No distinctive culture or religion supersedes our duty to be part of an integrated United Kingdom.”
CAIR: Self Absorbed and Morally Distorted
Give credit where credit is due. Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer and CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations) held a staring contest last Tuesday and CAIR blinked.
The meeting between the Senator and officials from CAIR was held at CAIR’s request to “resolve” the issue of an award that had been bestowed to a local CAIR operative and then subsequently rescinded based on the Senator’s concerns about the organization. As expressed to the media, the concerns involved “past statements and actions by the group” and “allegations” of CAIR’s ties to terrorist organizations, particularly Hamas.
Hamas is a well-known Palestinian terrorist group that has been responsible for the murders of hundreds of Israelis, the vast majority of whom have been civilians. Some of its victims were American citizens as well. The group’s specialty is to send suicide bombers into shopping malls, cafes and onto passenger buses with the promise of Islamic paradise as a reward for the horror inflicted on Jewish civilians in the name of Allah.
The organization’s bomb makers, who often wear a green logo printed with the Shahada (“there is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his messenger”), equip their young “Holy Warriors” with incendiary and shrapnel devices that are designed to maximize both the death toll and the trauma of survivors. Those not killed outright in the hundreds of Hamas attacks often suffer disfigurement, loss of limbs, reduced mobility, chronic pain, and permanent damage to soft organs including the brain.
It doesn’t take a great deal of common sense for Islamic groups like CAIR to know that improving Islam’s image and salvaging the religion from reasonable accusations that it accommodates violence and terror has to begin with specifically condemning terrorist organizations like Hamas by name. Hamas not only deliberately murders innocent people in barbaric fashion, but it does so expressly in the name of Islam.
Yet, not only has CAIR refused to condemn Hamas as a terrorist group in the past, its leaders are still unable to bring themselves to do so now – even with the organization’s credibility and reputation so clearly on the line. The result of the meeting with Boxer was that the Senator refused to reinstate the award, and (understandably) reaffirmed her original concerns about CAIR.
For its part, CAIR served up the weak excuse that it isn’t its job to “classify who’s a terrorist and who’s not.”
Others offer a more realistic explanation.
Liberal Senators Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin have noted CAIR’s “associations” and “intimate links” with Hamas and other organizations that support terror. CAIR officials and associates have been convicted of funding terrorism. A U.S. court even found CAIR’s parent organization, the Islamic Association of Palestine, to be partially liable for the murder of an American teenager at the hands of Hamas gunmen.
In addition to this, Hamas enjoys deep popularity in the Islamic world. The extremist elements from which CAIR has received a great deal of money have even been known to openly root for Osama Bin Laden. As such, CAIR has managed to denounce Osama by name only once (three months after 9/11). And, for all of the bloody carnage wreaked by Hamas over the years, only a single incident appears to have met CAIR’s standard of disapproval (the Passover bombing of 2002).
Brushing aside any obligation specifically to condemn terrorists and their acts, CAIR prefers to play word games when pressed into a corner. The group often claims, for example, that it has denounced “all acts of terrorism,” even though it most certainly has not. What it has done in the past is offer rare and selective criticism of a tiny handful of high-profile attacks (such as 9/11 and the Passover bombing) while adamantly refusing even to acknowledge over 99 percent of deadly Islamic violence against innocent people.
In fact, CAIR’s feeble claim that it condemns “all acts of terrorism” is based merely on its own statements to that effect, which make it entirely meaningless. If offering blanket denunciations had any real value, then the organization would simply announce that it condemns all instances of Muslim-American offense, for example, instead of going to great lengths detailing and publicizing each and every complaint.
CAIR has nothing to say when Sudanese Muslims enslave Christians or when 200,000 Darfurians are massacred (as they have been over the last four years), but if a civilian is accidentally killed by an Israeli missile strike against terrorists whom the Palestinians refuse to arrest, then the outrage from CAIR is immediate and specific. Like other supremacist organizations, from the Klan to the Nazis, CAIR sees no reason to extend the mantle of humanity beyond its own identity.
At the end of the day, CAIR reflects the self-absorption and moral distortion that is rampant in the Islamic world, where relevance and ethics are determined only by how Muslims are affected. Deliberate and sadistic acts in the name of Islam are usually ignored, while the highest degree of petulance and lamentation is attached to anything that offends the delicate sensibilities of Muslims.
If CAIR’s mission statement is to enhance an understanding of the religion that it holds supreme, then it is surely succeeding. Given the group’s arrogant disregard for victims of terrorism, and its extraordinary reluctance to condemn specific perpetrators and acts of Islamic violence when they occur, the unflattering conclusions reached by many observers about Islam itself are only to be expected.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Glen Reinsford is Editor of www.thereligionofpeace.com.
© 2003-2007 FamilySecurityMatters.org All Rights Reserved
Constitutional Authority to Attack Iran
By Henry Mark Holzer
FrontPageMagazine.com | January 26, 2007
In President Bush’s recent speech announcing his troop buildup, he promised to interrupt the “flow of support” running from Iran to their surrogate killers in Iraq. Even though the president’s inner circle and speechwriters chose his words carefully, there is necessarily an unmistakable meaning to what he said.American forces and intelligence agencies have long known that there is a pipeline of fighters, materiel, and money flowing from Iran to the killers on the ground throughout Iraq. This is what the president meant by “flow of support.” And it is this pipeline that he has vowed to “interrupt.”
Predictably, those who want to see America’s nose bloodied in Iraq even more than it has been already reacted quickly. Senator Joseph Biden, for example, warned the Secretary of State that an attack on Iran would “generate a constitutional confrontation in the Senate,” whatever that obvious threat was supposed to mean. Members of both parties in the House of Representatives, who apparently don’t understand Article II of the Constitution, have started to push a joint resolution that would prohibit an attack on Iran unless Congress approved.
While Article I of the Constitution provides that Congress has the power to “declare War,” to “raise and support Armies,” and to “provide and maintain a Navy,” Article II provides that the “executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States,” who “shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.”
This constitutional architecture, federal court cases that have addressed presidential war powers, and custom and practice during this nation’s entire history, leave no doubt that President Bush can interrupt the flow of support from Iran into Iraq and, for good measure, destroy, or at least immobilize, Iran’s growing nuclear capability.
The Constitution’s text is clear regarding the division of war powers: Congress can, if it wishes, declare war, and can fund or not fund, military operations. But it is the president who commands that military. It was President Franklin Roosevelt, as commander-in-chief, not some committee of Congress, who abandoned the Philippine Islands after Pearl Harbor, who declined to open the “second front” invasion of mainland Europe until he was ready, and who insisted on “unconditional surrender” of the German and Japanese armies.
One would think from today’s struggle for power between Congress and the president, that the war powers delegated by the Constitution have produced serious conflicts between the two branches in the past. Not so. In nearly 200 years, from about 1798 to late last century, presidents have sent—at least 130 times—troops and materiel abroad absent Congressional approval.
The last time Congress formally declared war was in December 1941, following the attack on Pearl Harbor more than a half-century ago.
Yet in the ensuing 50 years, our country has fought three major conflicts—not counting President Eisenhower’s actions in the Formosa Straits and Suez, President Kennedy’s Cuba quarantine, President Johnson’s troop deployment to Santo Domingo, President Reagan’s attack on Grenada, and the first President Bush’s ousting of dictator Manual Noriega in Panama.
The Korean “police action” lasted from 1950 to 1953, and cost some 50,000 American lives. The United States was at war, even though initially it began with an attack by North Korea on South Korea.
American troops were committed to South Vietnam’s “insurgency” beginning in 1964, and in huge numbers after that. By the time we bailed out in 1973, some 58,000 troops had died. It is not without reason that the conflict is called the “Vietnam War.”
In 1991, America and coalition forces semi-whipped Saddam Hussein in the name of Kuwait’s “territorial integrity,” thankfully with few American casualties. The conflict is called the “Gulf War.”
The combined cost in American lives of these three conflicts was nearly 100,000. The cost in dollars was billions. The United States cannot lose nearly 100,000 of its citizens and billions of its dollars and the conflict not be a war.
How, then, did we fight these wars without a Congressional declaration? What happened to Congress’s power—some think duty—to declare war for the Korean, Vietnam, and Persian Gulf conflicts?The answer is that Congress played it safe. It gave three presidents—Truman, Johnson, and Bush (41) – something, without having to go on record as formally declaring war. In each case Congress “actively acquiesced” in the president’s conduct as commander-in-chief.
In the Korean War, Congress, while not formally declaring war, consistently supported our engagement by, among other things, approving conscription and appropriating money.
In the Vietnam War, while not formally declaring war, Congress again approved conscription and appropriated money—and went even further by giving President Johnson the questionable Gulf of Tonkin Resolution as a fig leaf.
In the Gulf War, Congress gave President Bush (41) a resolution of support, rather than a formal declaration of war.
In this active acquiescence in the war-making power of three presidents, Congress could be reasonably confident that so long as it did not expressly oppose what the commander-in-chief was doing, the Supreme Court of the United States would eventually uphold the president’s power to fight, even absent a formal Congressional declaration of war.
However, the question of whether any of these three conflicts were “constitutional” absent a formal declaration of war by Congress was never decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. Had it been (assuming the Court would have been willing to decide the question at all), Article II would have trumped Article I.
The same would have been true if the Supreme Court had ruled on the constitutionality of the current war in Iraq, because of Congress’s September 2001 Joint Resolution “Authorization for Use of Military Force” (AUMF).
The AUMF recited that its purpose was “[t]o authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States”; that “the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States”; and that accordingly
the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons. (Emphasis added.)
The reason the Supreme Court would have upheld the current war in Iraq is found in the Korean War-era case of Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer. The year was 1952. America troops were engaged in bloody combat against hordes of Chinese Communist troops who had in late 1951 crossed the northern China-Korea Yalu River border and swept south.
In the United States, a steel strike loomed. President Truman, committed to his United Nations-sanctioned “police action” on the other side of the world and fearing a strike would cripple the war effort, ordered his Secretary of Commerce (Sawyer) to seize and operate many of the nation’s mills.
A divided Supreme Court (6-3) invalidated Truman’s Executive Order against, among other arguments, the president’s claim that his commander-in-chief power justified the steel mills seizure because of the war. Two aspects of the Court’s opinion bear directly on President Bush’s possible attack on Iran.
For the Court’s majority, Associate Justice Hugo Black wrote:
Even though ‘theater of war’ be an expanding concept, we cannot with faithfulness to our constitutional system hold that the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces has the ultimate power as such to take possession of private property in order to keep labor disputes from stopping production. This is a job for the Nation’s law-makers [Congress], not for its military authorities. (Emphasis added.)
It is noteworthy that in Youngstown, as long ago as a half-century ago, the Supreme Court expressly recognized that the concept of “theater of war” was an “expanding” one—meaning that the conventional war paradigms of World War I and World War II, and their predecessors, had given way to less conventional military conduct in aid of newer concepts of national self interest.
Iran—with its furious race for atomic weapons, its madman leader, and his psychotic threat to annihilate our only real ally in the Middle East—is certainly an example of that more modern understanding of what is in America’s national interest.
Moreover, the Youngstown Court rejected President Truman’s seizure of the steel mills essentially because they were private property. Although this important fact was not expressly discussed in terms of Congress’s Fifth Amendment eminent domain power, in reality the Court was saying that the President, as commander-in-chief, simply could not take private property for public use without satisfying the Constitution’s requirement that “just compensation” be paid. An attack by the United States on Iran would of course not involve a taking of private property for public, or any other, use.
But most important about the Youngstown case—and most important if President Bush decides to move against Iran without seeking a formal Congressional declaration of war—is the concurring opinion of Associate Justice Robert Jackson, former Attorney General of the United States. The Jackson concurrence in Youngstown has since then been the acknowledged analysis for weighing the relative powers of Congress and the President.
Jackson believed that the president’s powers vis-à-vis Congress, including especially his commander-in-chief power, were “not fixed but fluctuate, depending on their disjunction or conjunction with those of Congress.” From this premise, he developed a three-part analysis.
When the “President acts pursuant to an ‘express authorization’ of Congress, his authority is at its maximum.” As an example, Jackson noted that although FDR’s conduct prior to December 8, 1941 may have been questionable constitutionally, Congress’s immediate declaration of war on that date provided the President with, in the justice’s words, “maximum” authority.
Putting aside Korea, Vietnam, and the Gulf conflicts, it is instructive to look at the Iraq War.
The AUMF authorized the president to “deter and prevent,” it targeted “nations” including those that “aided” the 9/11 terrorists, and it aimed at “prevent[ing] future attacks.” Perhaps more important—certainly from the perspective of Supreme Court meddling in presidential war-making decisions—the AUMF used the word “he,” meaning the President.
In doing so, the Joint Resolution expressly delegated to the president alone the discretion to determine against whom to use force in defending the United States against international terrorism. Under this reading of the AUMF, by taking necessary steps to interdict fighters, materiel, and money flowing from Iran to Iraq, and to assure that eventually Iranian tactical nuclear weapons are not used against American interests there, here, or anywhere else, president Bush would be acting well within the AUMF’s delegation to him by Congress of the power to deter and prevent nations from making future attacks.
However, even if the Joint Resolution does not rise to the level of Justice Jackson’s “express authorization,” it doesn’t matter.
Jackson’s analysis continued. If the president acts:
in the absence of either a congressional grant or denial of authority, he can only rely on his own independent powers, but there is a zone of twilight in which he and Congress may have concurrent authority, or in which its distribution is uncertain. Therefore, congressional inertia…may sometimes…enable, if not invite, measures on independent presidential responsibility.
In other words, Congressional silence—especially in military affairs, where the president wears the mantle of constitutionally delegated commander-in-chief — enables him to act unilaterally. Thus, if Congress remains silent about an attack on Iran, which so far it has, there is no doubt that under Justice Jackson’s Youngstown analysis, President Bush has the power to act unilaterally.
It is another story entirely if the president acts against the express, or perhaps even the implied, wishes of Congress. He is then, according to Jackson, at the “lowest ebb” of his power. Then, according to Jackson, the President can “rely only upon his own constitutional powers minus any constitutional powers of Congress over the matter. [e.g., the President’s Article II power as Commander-in-Chief, versus Congress’s Article I power to declare (but not ‘make’) war].”
In the case of Iran, however, whatever Congress has already done to authorize the president’s actions in the AUMF, it is manifest that the legislature—unlike in Youngstown, where Jackson found that seizure was contrary to the expressed will of Congress—has done nothing to oppose military action against Iran. At least not yet.
Youngstown thus puts the democrat-controlled Congress in a difficult position.
Under the Jackson analysis, which would likely be applied by the Court today even though it would constitute judicial meddling in a war, Congress has two main choices (on the assumption that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi aren’t going to allow their party to expressly or impliedly authorize the President to attack Iraq).
Congress can remain silent on the subject, with some of its members continuing to posture on the Sunday TV talk shows, thus avoiding commitment, in which case President Bush, wearing his commander-in-chief hat, can attack Iran in any manner he sees fit.
Or, Congress, defying over 200 years of American history, can uncharacteristically and unambiguously, oppose military action against Iran—which is what some on the Hill are now trying to accomplish through a resolution.
Even then, there are at least two reasons why President Bush should win a judicial showdown.Under the third part of Justice Jackson’s analysis, even if Congress did oppose presidential action, that opposition must be “scrutinized with caution.” This is most true when it comes to military matters where, until the present Court and its meddling in war-fighting issues like the Guantanamo detainees and military commissions, there might be no scrutiny at all.
Assuming Congress expressly prohibited President Bush from attacking Iran, the Supreme Court would still be bound to “scrutinize with caution” the question of whether the commander-in-chief possessed that power—and in doing so, it is a near certainty that under separation of powers doctrine Article II would trump Article I.
The other reason President Bush should win a judicial showdown—aside from Youngstown, Justice Jackson’s analysis, and whatever Congress may have already done or might do in the future—is because the United States has been at war with Iran since at least 1979
In National Review Online (January 20, 2007), the peerless observer of Iranian affairs, Michael Ledeen wrote, in “More Needed Against Syria, Iran,” that at the time of the Iranian Revolution of 1979 “the Ayatollah Khomeini declared war on the United States.” Indeed, Ledeen reminds us that there have been attacks on “American soldiers and civilians by Iran [a nation state]…over nearly 30 years.”
Too many Americans have forgotten that in 1979 it was Iranians who seized the American embassy in Tehran. Since that time, it is Iran that has given aid and comfort to the terrorists responsible for September 11th, it is Iran and its surrogates that have killed Americans in Lebanon, Iraq, and around the world. It is Iran that has committed other warlike acts, even though they have involved asymmetrical tactics rather than conventional land forces. It is Iran that has acted in many other ways to subvert and attack American security.
The definition of “war” is not an esoteric one (except where it’s necessary to interpret the term’s usage in contracts like insurance policies. “War,” Webster’s is “open armed conflict between countries.”
Time and time again, Congress has implicitly recognized our war with Iran, albeit inadequately and in a non-military fashion. For example, Congress has appropriated funds for overt and covert operations against Iran, from radio broadcasts to CIA penetrations. Indeed, it can be said that Congress’s appropriation of funds for the Iraq War have, at least in part, been intended to fight Iran in Baghdad and elsewhere in that country. And as discussed above, a legitimate interpretation of Congress’s 2001 AUMF allows the president to attack Iran.
It is not a little ironic that it is democrats who fiddle while the world burns— bombastically intoning that the president’s Article II power, especially as augmented by Congressional actions, does not allow him to attack Iran—when, without express Congressional approval, it was Franklin Delano Roosevelt who violated the Neutrality Act to aid Great Britain in its near-terminal struggle with Nazi Germany, John Kennedy who attacked Castro’s dictatorship in Cuba, Jimmy Carter who launched a rescue mission onto Iranian soil in a belated attempt to rescue our embassy hostages, and Bill Clinton who lobbed harmless missiles into the Sudan and Afghanistan and dropped bombs in the Balkans.
While today’s democrats dither, trying to appear in favor of dealing with Iran’s growing danger to the United States (and our ally, Israel) while simultaneously being in opposition to it, we can only hope that George W. Bush will understand that he has broad military power under Article II, that he is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of our nation, and that he can—he must—remove the significant threat Iran poses to the United States.
Today, more than six decades since December 7, 1941, most of the words of President Roosevelt’s speech to Congress the next day have been largely forgotten. Several lessons can be learned from what FDR said:
Requesting a Declaration of War with Japan
December 8, 1941 Yesterday, December 7, 1941—a date which will live in infamy—the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan. The United States was at peace with that Nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its Government and its Emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific. Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in the American Island of Oahu, the Japanese Ambassador to the United States and his colleague delivered to our Secretary of State a formal reply to a recent American message. And while this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or of armed attack. It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time the Japanese Government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace. The attack yesterday on the Hawaiian Islands has caused severe damage to American naval and military forces. I regret to tell you that very many American lives have been lost. In addition American ships have been reported torpedoed on the high seas between San Francisco and Honolulu. Yesterday the Japanese Government also launched an attack against Malaya. Last night Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong. Last night Japanese forces attacked Guam. Last night Japanese forces attacked the Philippine Islands. Last night the Japanese attacked Wake Island. And this morning the Japanese attacked Midway Island. Japan has, therefore, undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area. The facts of yesterday and today speak for themselves. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our Nation. As Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense. But always will our whole Nation remember the character of the onslaught against us. No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory. I believe that I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us. Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory, and our interests are in grave danger. With confidence in our armed forces- with the unbounding determination of our people—we will gain the inevitable triumph—so help us God. I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire. (Emphasis added.)
As commander-in-chief, President Roosevelt acted immediately. As commander-in-chief, President Roosevelt ordered everything possible be done to defend this country—which included military action where necessary and possible.
But more important than anything else FDR said in his momentous post-Pearl Harbor address to the nation—especially in light of 30 years of Iranian attacks on this country—as president of the United States, Roosevelt deemed a state of war to exist simply because of the Japanese attack on the United States. America was at war the instant the Japanese attacked. Roosevelt asked simply that Congress formally recognize that fact.
It may be too much to expect George W. Bush to be another FDR, but it is not too much to hope that our current President will emulate Harry Truman—who dropped two atomic bombs in order to end the war in the Pacific and prevent countless more American deaths, and who knew that the buck stops in the Oval Office.
By P. David Hornik
FrontPageMagazine.com | January 26, 2007
Israel’s month of fighting Hezbollah last summer in
Lebanon combined some effective air attacks on missile installations with confused, inconclusive actions on the ground. On August 11, around when
Israel appeared to have learned lessons and was set to launch a serious ground campaign against Hezbollah, the UN Security Council imposed Resolution 1701 and stopped the offensive in its tracks.
Allowing Israel to take a few more weeks and rout Hezbollah—preferably also with some sobering strikes against
Syria—would have created a different scenario and, most important, perceptions of a Western victory and humiliating jihadist defeat. That may have allowed the truly moderate Christian, Druze, and Muslim forces in
Lebanon to start trying to retake control of their country while leaving the Iranian-led jihad axis reeling.
United States and the world community have chosen with this dire Security Council resolution to create a powerful scenario of perceived, and to some extent real, jihadist victory…It is a moment that will come back to haunt
America and the West.
It didn’t take long for it to come back and haunt it. Already on November 24 Time magazine reported that Hezbollah had replenished “its war chest with over 20,000 short-range missiles—a similar amount to what they had at the start of the conflict.” The effectiveness of the Lebanese and enhanced UNIFIL units that deployed after the war was limited to “forcing smugglers to use mountain passes instead of the heavily monitored crossing on the main Beirut-Damascus road.”
Tuesday’s harsh, Hezbollah-led agitation against the Siniora government was another ominous episode in a rapid deterioration.
Lebanon’s Daily Star called it “a nationwide protest that paralyzed the country and left its capital engulfed in barricades of blazing tires and bloodied by clashes that left at least three dead and over 130 wounded…unverified reports [said] at least seven had perished in street clashes.”
The Star quotes Siniora in a televised address Tuesday night: “We are at a dangerous crossroads: Either we are heading to a civil war, or heading to dialogue.”
His hope for dialogue appeared naive, as Hezbollah MP Amin Cherri declared: “This was a warning to the government…. The government has to respond to our demands, and if it doesn’t, then it should expect even greater escalation, far worse than today’s.”
Since Hezbollah’s demand is basically that the government dissolve itself, further strife seemed assured. It continued Thursday with a Shiite-Sunni riot at Beirut’s
University that left four dead.
The situation found the West doing little but looking on and hoping for the best. In President Bush’s 2903-word January 11 speech on Iraq, the word Lebanon appeared only once: “From Afghanistan to Lebanon to the
Territories, millions of ordinary people are sick of the violence. . . .” The speech devoted a few sentences to Iran and Syria’s destabilizing role—in Iraq, while saying nothing about their effort, through their Hezbollah proxy, to convert
Lebanon from a moderate, struggling, pluralist democracy to an outpost of fanaticism.
And Bush’s State of the Union address Tuesday night managed only to recount
Lebanon’s recent troubles—“assassins took the life of Pierre Gemayel…And Hezbollah terrorists, with support from Syria and Iran…are seeking to undermine
Lebanon’s legitimately elected government”—without even hinting that anything might be done about it.
On Thursday at a donors’ conference for Lebanon in Paris, Western and Arab parties pledged $7.6 billion to assist
Lebanon with damages from the summer’s war and an enormous national debt. But with the country’s future in imminent peril, the idea of a gradual, assisted economic recovery has a surreal slow-motion quality to it.
Like—to a large extent—the imbroglio in Iraq, the crisis in Lebanon stems from having allowed Iran, with Syrian help, to foment radicalism and instability in the
Middle East for close to three decades with little response other than warnings. Last summer the near-universal allergy to Israeli military action led the United States and other Western countries to save Hezbollah and ensure
Lebanon’s descent into graver plight.
Israel’s neutralization means there is no pro-Western force left to counter the radicals on the ground.
The fall of the Siniora government would constitute a major victory for the Nasrallah-Assad-Ahmadinejad axis, make war with Israel a certainty, and further galvanize Shiite and other extremism in the
Middle East. The only remaining hope is that eventual Western military strikes on Iran and possibly Syria would take the geopolitical sting out of such a dire development, apart from
Lebanon’s own tragedy.