Last week the United States House of Representatives voted by a majority margin of 6 votes to provide war funding for the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. The United States Senate passed a similar war funding bill by a two vote margin on Tuesday. Such funding is necessary to provide supplies extending from ammunition and body armor to toilet tissue for the troops engaged in war activities. In addition to providing the necessary funds, the House also included a deadline of September 2008 for the withdrawal of American forces in Iraq; and the Senate version of the funding legislation requires the beginning of a withdrawal of American forces within 120 days of passage of the bill, and a suggested goal of combat forces being withdrawn of March 2008. While all Americans desire for American troops to return home from combat, and for the bloodletting to end as quickly as possible, the principal issue is whether it is prudent national policy to establish a deadline, given existing circumstances in Iraq, and the broader war against Islamic jihad. Many will argue that the Congress is merely reflecting the will of the American people. Yet Congressional actions are not prima facie evidence that the majority of the people is right. Even in the hallowed judicial branch of government the majority is not always right. A review of judicial history, and the cases of Dred Scott, and Plessy versus Ferguson in particular, will quickly dispel any such notion.

The enemy, often referred to as radical Islamists, Islamic extremists, Islamic jihadists, and Islamic facists, has declared war on the United States (MEW). Their stated goal is the destruction of America and its allies which comprise Western civilization. It has been actively pursuing its goal through terrorist attacks against the United States and its allies. Attacks resulting in death and mass injury have occurred in the US; Spain; Great Britain; and elsewhere around the globe. In late August of 2006, most fortunately a plot to bomb 10 jumbo jets departing from London and headed to the US, using liquid explosives smuggled on-board by suicide terrorists, was unraveled through on-going intelligence gathering activities shared among allies in the war. Thus far, there is no indication that the enemy intends to surrender. They continue to recruit, train, equip, plan and attack.

The specified Congressional withdrawal deadlines raise some important questions, to wit: how will the deadly enemy respond to an announced deadline for withdrawal; secondly, what will happen inside Iraq; and finally how will an announced deadline effect the security of the US and its allies? Answers to these questions, and subsequent military actions appurtenant thereto, will have strategic consequences for the war and America.

In respect to the initial question, one might assume the role of the enemy and ask, “if one were their position, how would one react?” Most likely the course of continuing the fight would be selected, with the expectation that each passing day is another day closer to achieving a strategic victory. After all, American forces will leave in September 2008; and upon their departure, power can virtually be assumed in the country, given the nature of the enemy and the inability of Iraqi security forces to provide security inside the country before they have achieved the desired state of operational readiness. Thus, in all probability the enemy will simply wait for US forces to leave Iraq, which will of course confirm their fundamental war premise that America lacks the will, or more bluntly stated, does not have the “stomach” for the fight.

 

An assessment of the second question reveals a foreboding conclusion. In 1991, immediately following the end of the Gulf War, Iraqi citizens were encouraged by the US Government to revolt and overthrow Saddam Hussein. Many Iraqi Shiites acted upon this message with the tacit understanding that they would be supported or at least protected by nearby American forces. Tragically, US forces were ordered not to engage in any combat operations during this uprising. The net result was the slaughter of an estimated 50,000 Iraqi citizens by the Hussein regime. Although this number is horrific, it pales in comparison to the estimates of Iraqi citizens who would likely be killed upon a departure by US forces before the establishment of a stable government which can provide for its own security. Such a number might easily exceed a million dead Iraqi citizens. All of the Iraqi citizens who have participated in four free elections would be vulnerable to the enemy within the country, who is actively fighting to stop democracy in Iraq, and who may seek retribution against those 12 million Iraqis who risked their lives in  voting for a free country. This is only one tragic consequence which will occur to some degree inside the country. Another likely outcome is that Iraq will become the headquarters for global terrorism. Iraq’s neighbor, Iran, is the world’s principal state sponsor of terrorism. They are already involved in supporting the enemy inside Iraq; and upon a premature departure of US forces will simply be in a position to exert control over the country, establishing an infrastructure for housing, training, and equipping Islamic terrorists including those of Al Qaeda, who already has terrorists operating inside Iraq. Further, Iran and its terrorist allies would be in a position to harness Iraq’s vast oil revenues as a primary funding source to support conducting terrorist operations worldwide. Moreover, the terrorist enemy will effectively have transitioned its headquarters from Afghanistan to Iraq, a significantly enhanced geo-strategic location than its predecessor.

How will these Congressional deadlines effect US security, that is, the safety of American families? Perhaps a brief review of recent history will assist in properly discerning the situation, and addressing this important question. Since 9/11, no major terrorist attack has occurred in the United States. Is this merely good fortune? Of course not! Law enforcement and the Intelligence community have foiled at least a dozen major terrorist plots against American targets. Thus, the enemy has not ceased operations. They intend to attack and strike hard against America, as indicated by the planned jetliner attack discussed above, but they are experiencing some difficulty. The source of this difficulty rests in one contravening force, namely, the US military. It must be observed that the US military was not in Iraq on 9/11; nor was it in Afghanistan. Since American armed forces and their coalition partners were unleashed, two dictatorial regimes have been removed; and 50 million people have been liberated. US forces are in the enemy’s neighborhood capturing and killing enemy Islamic terrorists on a broad scale. In effect, the enemy is on the run because US forces are taking the battle to them in their own backyard. In this context, a premature withdrawal will allow the enemy time to recover, regroup, and reconstitute its battle plan; and to initiate offensive operations in a significantly less impeded manner, thereby increasing the probability of executing successful attacks abroad, specifically, in American and European cities. In short, this war will be fought somewhere; and the only real question is whether America will fight the war on foreign soil or its own soil. Accordingly, a pre-announced deadline for US forces to be withdrawn, before Iraq is capable of defending itself against this enemy,  will increase the risk of death and injury to American citizens.

To be “crystal” clear on this matter, early withdrawal from Iraq is tantamount to surrendering the country to the Islamic terrorist enemy. Every sensible American wants peace. Yet, as President John Kennedy once said, “What kind of peace do we seek?” His rhetorical answer “Not the security of the grave or the peace of the slave.” “The cost of freedom is always high,” as President Kennedy said, “but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender, or submission.” The sobering truth is that freedom has not, and cannot, be purchased through surrender. History affirms that evil men will not permit it. It has been purchased in blood and the sacrifice of precious lives. Notwithstanding, the US Congress by virtue of its vote, instead of demonstrating political, and most importantly, moral courage equal to the battlefield courage of American Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Coast Guardsmen and Marines, and making the solemn payment, has decidedly unjustly surrendered.

Albeit a dangerous vote by Congress, hope is not yet lost. There is one additional vote to be cast on the war funding matter, namely, that of the President of the United States and the Commander in Chief; who remains steadfast and determined that America will not cower, nor relent from offensive military operations, in the face of an enemy who seeks to kill us and destroy the nation. Hence, the President will exercise his vote, and veto the Congressional legislation, encompassing a timetable for withdrawal of American forces from Iraq. God willing, his veto will be sustained.

There should be no doubt that the men and women of the United States military can and will win this war, if the American people through their elected representatives do not lose it. The enemy’s primary target is innocent and defenseless civilians who stand for freedom; as it knows through battlefield experience that it cannot defeat valiant American warriors. War, as oft repeated, is a test of wills; and history will record whether this generation of Americans had the enduring will to win; and once again as President Abraham Lincoln eloquently stated, ensure “that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”