Iraq, 3 years later

March 20, 2006 marked the third anniversary of the beginning of the war in Iraq. American forces quickly toppled Saddam's regime but, three years later, the war continues – as the U.S. faces a dire terrorist enemy that seeks to prevent democracy from coming to Iraq and to impose a tyrannical Sharia state on the Iraqi people. To mark the third anniversary of this center of conflict in our war on terror, we have assembled a distinguished panel to assess: how are we doing and where are we headewd? Our guests today are:

Captain Chuck Nash, a retired Naval Aviator and former F/A-18 HORNET squadron commander. He is the founder of Emerging Technologies International Inc., a defense technology consulting business in Alexandria VA. He is also a FOX News Channel Military Analyst.

Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney, the co-author with Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely on their book Endgame: The Blueprint for Victory in the War on Terror. He is a retired Air Force Fighter Pilot who has been a Fox News Military Analyst for the last four and a half years and continues to appear regularly on Fox. He just returned from his second visit to Iraq in December, 2005.

Paul (Dave) Gaubatz, a former U.S. Federal Agent (Arabic linguist/counter-terrorist specialist) who was deployed to Iraq at the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom. He is currently the Chief Investigator with the Dallas County Medical Examiner, Dallas, TX.

Buzz Patterson, Lieutenant Colonel, USAF (Retired). He is the author of the New York Times bestseller 'Dereliction of Duty' and 'Reckless Disregard'. He is the host of 'The Buzz Cut' at Rightalk Radio Network.

FP: Captain Chuck Nash, Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney, Paul (Dave) Gaubatz, and Buzz Patterson, welcome to Frontpage Symposium.

Captain Nash, let’s begin with you. Let’s start with a general theme and see where our discussion goes. Three years later in Iraq, how do you think we are doing? Are we winning or losing? What have we done right and what have we done wrong? What have been some of the significant landmark watersheds, if any?

Nash: I firmly believe that we are winning in every sense of that word. If you look at the polls taken in Iraq, the vast majority of the people think their lives are getting better and see the future as brighter.

Having said that, there are some significant hurdles that the Iraqis must get over but in the main, I believe the people see that their future is more secure as a nation state of Iraq with its borders intact than they would be in a tough neighbourhood as separate religious/ethnic identities.

The people in real trouble over there today are the foreign fighters because the populace is turning on them as there is real recognition now that they are the main source of the problems and have been stirring up most of the trouble. Hard wrok and some difficult times but things are definitely looking up.

FP: But how about the conflict between the Sunnis and the Shi’ites? Doesn’t civil war between them pose just as much, if not more, of a threat to our goals in Iraq than the terrorist threat does?

Mr. Gaubatz what are your thoughts on the war three years later, Captain’s Nash’s optimistic view and my question?

Gaubatz: I am normally a very optimistic person and always try to find the good in any situation. I supported our President 3 years ago when I went to Iraq at the start of the war, and support him today. I do have my concerns though. When I was in Iraq 3 years ago, myself and another agent would travel to major cities throughout Iraq. We were often alone. We felt pretty safe. Today I would be apprehensive about doing this due to serious security concerns. I foresaw potential problems 3 years ago. It was not uncommon for U.S. military personnel to visit the Iraqi shops, restaurants, gift stores, etc. This has pretty much been eliminated.

The only time average Iraqis see our troops is when they are patrolling the streets. I spoke to literally thousands of Iraqis during my tour. They want and need to have the confidence of the Americans. They need us in their towns day and night. The Iraqis want simply the 'Maslow" needs. They want food, schools, electricity, clean water and medical care for their children. For the most part until these needs are completely satisfied there will be problems.

We must have the average Iraqi supporting us to win the war in Iraq. It is achievable, but we are going to have to go back to the rebuilding efforts and be with the people 24 hours a day. This will take more troops, but I see it as the only way. The Iraqis told me 3 years ago that a civil war would erupt; it may not be a civil war now, but it is getting closer. I will end with an optimistic view: We are the best trained and best managed military in the world. If victory is achievable in Iraq, we have the troops and leaders who can do it.

Now in terms of the possible civil war between the Sunnis and Shi'ites, it is no surprise to me, nor to the Iraqi people. A full scale civil war would be disastrous to all. I do not think it is too late to prevent a civil war. Everything comes down to building rapport. The rapport must be built between the Sunni, Shi'ite, and Americans. Rapport equals trust and acceptance.

I have trained over 3000 law enforcement officers during the last 6 months; Basic Arabic, History/Geography, Customs, Culture, Courtesies, and the basic fundamentals of Islam. Every soldier (from E-1 to 0-10/General) and civilian going to or interacting with Iraqis must have a solid understanding of each of these areas. If you do not you are asking for problems. When we first went into Iraq there was only a handful of people who even knew how to say good morning, hello, etc. A greeting as simple as hello goes a long way in building relations.

Upon leaving Iraq in 2003, I wrote a guide book titled, "Arabic for Law Enforcement and Military". It was published in Feb 2006. It is a small contribution, but it can go a long way in developing an understanding between all involved. We have to admit trust and acceptance between all parties is lacking. Once this is accomplished we will be on our way to achieving our goal.

FP: Ok, so, in terms of security concerns for American soldiers, things are much worse. What does this mean?

And are we sure that what Iraqis want is just a good standard of living? Even if we get the Sunnis and Shi’ites to cooperate, do most of them want Islam or democracy? Are these mutually inclusive or exclusive?

McInerney: I concur with comments of both Chuck and Dave above. We are winning but it is a tough fight and we should expect it to be. The Islamic Extremists are not going to give up easily but remember 11 million Iraqi people voted at the risk of life and limb in December 2005. I believe they want democracy and freedom but our adversaries are just killing innocent people to create instability. The Iraqi people realize this and that is one of the reasons Zarqawi has been replaced because it isn’t working. I believe a new government of unity will help as which is somewhat frustrating as they have been slow to bring it together. In the final analysis it will be the Iraqi forces that defeat the insurgency and let the moderates bring about a democratic form of rule.

FP: Lieutenant Colonel Buzz Patterson, how do you see Iraq three years later and what do you make of the comments of the other panelists?

Lt. Gen. McInerney brings up the latest Zarqawi replacement. What do you think it signifies?

And I hope, of course, that the optimistic note struck here is correct, but isn’t it a bit more complicated than “Iraqi forces” defeating the terrorists? Isn’t this a bit more problematic because the Iraqi forces themselves are split along Shi’ite and Sunni lines and that is the big problem?

Patterson: It is going to take the Western world to win the greater war. This is just one of many battles. I agree, generally, with all of your distinguished guests. I'm a bit more optimistic based on daily communications with my peers in the theater and my trip to Iraq last summer. I would go so far as to say we've won the war but now we have to win the peace. The only possibility of a U.S. loss is on Capitol Hill.

This is not a vanilla insurgency. This is the best shot the Islamofascists can give us from across the region. Democracy and self-determination scare the hell out of Al Qaeda, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and most probably Jordan. The replacement of Zarqawi signals exactly what General McInerney says it does -- beheading innocents, targeting children with car bombs, taking out a wedding party in Amman is not playing well with the populous. That being said the recent video of terrorists dragging dying American pilots from the wreckage of their Blackhawk will not play well in the US. I believe the Iraqis want freedom badly enough to achieve it. We can't abandon them until they do.

FP: Thank you. Ok, Captain Nash, it is your turn. First I would like to comment on what has been said so far by the other panelists. After that, I would like you to say something about the trial of Saddam. Charles Krauthammer has been rather critical of the trial, commenting:

“If anything, Hussein should be brought in wearing prison garb, perhaps in shackles, just for effect. And why was he given control of the script? He shouts, interrupts and does his Mussolini histrionics unmolested. Instead of the press being behind a glass wall, it is Hussein who should be. Better still, placed in a glass booth, like Eichmann, like some isolated specimen of deranged humanity, symbolically and physically cut off from the world of normal human values.”

I very much agree with this. Or is this unrealistic and would it be counter-productive in some way?

Your thoughts Captain Nash? How important is the trial and its conclusion to what happens in Iraq?

Nash: I think the panelists have nailed most of the really important issues and not to put too fine a point on it but a friend of mine was talking with his nephew - a Navy Seal - who had just returned from Iraq. My friend asked him what he thought after his eighth combat deployment about what he saw over there as opposed to what he had seen on TV since coming back a week ago. The young Seal said that there was a universe of difference between what was really going on over there and what was being portrayed here in the media. He said as far as he was concerned "this wouldn't last another six months certainly not a year." His meaning was that things were about to break out into stability after this period of walking to the brink. His faith in the future was rock solid.

Now one might dismiss this as a young warrior with too close a view and not an "enlightened broader view." Point is, he was down where the Real work is being done getting the bad guys. He and his folks talked to the real people of Iraq and he said that they are turning in the bad guys faster than they can round them up. There is an avalanche of intelligence information coming our way now that we have never experienced. The Iraqi people are fed up with this violence and are stepping in to stop it.

Moving on to Saddam, he is a butcher and a criminal and he is a ward of the Iraqi judicial system, not ours. It is up to the Iraqis to handle this and I believe they will do so appropriately in accordance with their customs and laws. This has to be that way -- the Iraqi people, represented by their government and their judicial system seeking redress from their former leader.

FP: I have to say that the positive note and outlook struck here in this discussion is not what you hear about in the media.

Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney, your turn. A comment on the discussion and then the question on Saddam.

McInerney: I do not want to sound too optimistic because these vicious killers are not going to give up easily. They think that we do not have the will so they are going to continue the vicious killing of innocent people. But we are seeing some very good take downs of terrorists. For instance: Abu Ayman, leader of the secret Islamic Army, was captured by Iraqi Security Forces in early March, plus numerous IED factories etc are being discovered through human intelligence tips. This is how you defeat an insurgency, but we must be patient on the home front.

I believe Zarqawi is not going to be around for long; as someone will turn him in. This is probably why he has been demoted, because he has turned the Iraqi people against the insurgents -- one of the early signs of failure of an insurgency.

My concern is: will the American people reject the cut and run cry of the Democratic leadership and will President Bush and the administration explain why our forward strategy success is so critical to victory? Simply stated: you defeat Islamic Extremism Ideology in the region where it is so pervasive, not at home. The Cut and Run crowd does not realize we are fighting this ideology which is why their strategy is bankrupt.

With reference to Saddam’s trial, I must agree with Charles Krauthammer, Saddam should be in chains and a stripped suit signifying he is a criminal and not talk unless asked in an isolated glass cell.

Gaubatz: Security for our military personnel is going to get worse before it gets better. At the end of the day America will prevail, but we have to be prepared for more deaths of our military personnel. General McInerney makes a great point. The extremists are not going to quit easy. Not only do we have to stay the course, but we as Americans must stay united. We have to be united as we were on September 11th. There was a reason our forefathers called America the "United States". On September 11th we (all political parties) seemed to be one instead of separate groups. I had mentioned the extremists are patient. They look for weaknesses and take advantage of them. They observe the clashes between Democrats and Republicans; they see the war protesters, and when some of our leaders criticize our President, they watch. This is playing into their hands and it will be used as a weapon by them. Zarqawi may have lost power or may be killed, but there are dozens of Zarqawis waiting to replace him.

I wholeheartedly believe the "average citizen" of Iraq wants the same things in life that we Americans desire (jobs, security, medical, school). You can have Islam and democracy, as we have Christianity (and other religions in America) and democracy. The Iraqis that I spoke with (from doctors to Bedouins) want a country closer to the political and economic situations similar to Jordan. They do not want an Iran or Saudi Arabia. Again, we will win, but as the panelists have stated, it will take the support of the Americans to stand with our President.

In terms of the Saddam trial, the dictator should have been warned once only when he disrupted the court. Subsequent disruption should have resulted in chains and him being placed in a sound-proof room.

FP: Well I hope you can have Islam and democracy. I support what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan of course, but I do not think we can deny that there is a serious concern in terms of how the dedication to Islam in those countries will play out in the context of the attempt to nurture democracy.

I am not sure the analogy with Christianity is correct, seeing that Islam does not recognize the separation of Church and State as Christianity does.

The Rahman case in Afghanistan is a worrying sign. Wherever Muslims observe democracy (i.e. in the West) it is because they have agreed to live by the rules of the host society, not by the rules of their religion, which mandates Islamic law. And wherever any form of freedom exists in Muslim societies it is not because of the application of some legitimate strains of Islam, but because there has been a relaxation of accepted Islamic principles. Secular Turkey, for instance, was established in the context of a war with Islam.

We can hope, of course, that moderate Muslims who reject extremism can help reform their religion and bring it into the democratic and modern world. But they have a huge task ahead of them.

I am all for our military action in the Middle East and if we need to engage in more regime change by force (i.e. Iran, Syria etc.) then so be it. But that does not mean we make ourselves blind to the challenges ahead.

Patterson: Look, what the Bush administration is doing is historically unprecedented and obviously unpopular internationally. It’s as revolutionary an effort as any I can think of.

With the understanding that our enemy is not a few nut jobs hiding in caves in Afghanistan but well-organized and technologically-adept Islamofascism stretching around the globe, we are attempting to remove the totalitarian regimes which support and the oppressive conditions which breed this radicalism. I agree that it is the only way to ultimately vanquish this latest threat to the freedoms of people around the world. We had Nazism, fascism and communism in the last century and we prevailed. We will do so again, but it is going to be a long slog and, as I said before, Iraq isn't the final piece. In many ways it’s just the beginning.

We were slow to wake up to the fact that we'd been under attack by radical Islamists for 20 years by the time 9/11 occurred. Western Europe is realizing they have a huge problem on their hands as well. Regimes like the Taliban and Saddam have to be confronted and removed. There is no doubt in my mind that Iran will be next barring a complete turn-around on their government's position on nukes which isn't very likely.

There are certainly many more knowledgeable people than I on the complexities of Islam such as Daniel Pipes and Robert Spencer but a quick read of Muslim theology pretty clearly tells me that either moderates in that religion step up or we are well onto our way toward WWIII or IV depending on how you interpret the Cold War.

Whether or not Islamic countries can fully absorb democratic concepts and set aside Sharia law will be the acid test. The Rahman case is worrying but we wouldn't have even known about him during the Taliban years and he'd no doubt been beheaded in a soccer stadium for people to watch. I mean, I think the fact that it became an issue and was resolved signals some progress to me. As do women attending school, voting, and holding governmental positions. I think that's the clue to why the Saddam trial has been such a spectacle so far. The Iraqis have to try him under their system. We can't do it as that would be politically untenable. We certainly don't want the International Court doing it as that would result in a much larger circus. As much as I personally would have him in a Scott Peterson orange jump suit, chains and crew cut, we have to hope the Iraqis can pull it off in a way that sanctions their legitimacy. I don't think there's any doubt, though, that one way or another Saddam's days on earth are numbered.

From the larger perspective, moderate Muslims will have to be counted and condemn the terror of the Islamofacists are there is no amount of American sweat and tears that will guarantee democracy in their lands. As noble a goal as I think President Bush has, and as tremendous a job as I know our military has accomplished, we will need allies and friends in the Islamic world for there to be an end to all of this. I pray that that's forthcoming sooner than later.

(1) Where is Osama? Will we ever get him? Does it matter if we do or if we don’t?

(2) The mainstream media has made it a given that there were no WMDs in Iraq and that Hussein had no connection to Osama or to Islamist terror. But the evidence continues to confirm the exact opposite on both counts, no?

(3) What are the next crucial steps to fighting the Iraq war in particular and the terror war in general?

Nash: In terms of Osama, I think he is probably either in Iran or along the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Where ever he is, he has not had a decent night's sleep in a long time and his every contact with anyone outside his immediate entourage has to be reason for questioning "Is this the guy who is going to turn me in?" And that life-style will do for him until we eventually round him up -- which we most certainly will.

In the meantime, we will look, listen and hopefully find others along the way to him since there is a network and networks have to communicate in some form at some time. Rolling up his personal network will be very rewarding for the American people to see.

That said, the fight will go on because bin-Laden is but one man and this is a war between ideologies. The ideology that the enemy pushes is dehumanizing and barbaric and thus will be rejected by free thinking people. This is not a War on Terror, it is truly a War for Civilization itself.

In terms of WMDs and Saddam’s terror connection, the evidence started as a trickle that the mainstream media tried to discredit but now it has become more of a flow and before long one can reasonably expect that the flow will increase as the tapes and documents are translated and more and more people feel free to talk.

I really believe that when all is said and done that the media - if they were just half as honest about themselves as they are about the faults of others - will have egg all over their face. This probably won't happen though as there will be some reason why they were "deceived" and didn't have the right information.

The evidence will have to be analyzed by historians after those who are so quick to criticize are long out of office and the newsrooms.

First and foremost we must not send weak and conflicting signals that keep the Iraqi people wondering if it is safe to work with the Americans. Are we going to be there tomorrow or have an election in this country in November and pull the troops out? One way to do this is to get the entire U.S. government involved in the future of Iraq. As things stand today, only the U.S. military is involved. They are doing a terrific job but the agencies and departments of the new Iraqi government need assistance in standing up.

One of the things that critics love to point out is that at any given time 25% of the army forces are out of their barracks, as if they are AWOL. They are simply in transit to or from their homes to deliver their pay because Iraq has no central banking system, the soldiers are paid in cash and they have to physically transport that cash home to their families and they are given a week to make the round trip. It would be nice to see Treasury, Commerce, Agriculture, Energy and other departments assisting in this vital work. The Iraqis are tough and they will make it, we should be acting that way not seeding doubt.

Second we must work 24/7 to broadcast and get the word out to the Iraqis that the nation state of Iraq is the only solution to protecting the peoples of Iraq. The Iraqis must realize that their best opportunity for a real future comes in the unity of a political state called Iraq. If they break down to village and tribe for their security, another Beirut is possible and that will result in the neighbors stepping in and dividing the spoils. The Shiites in the south do not want to live under Iranian rule but if Iraq fails, they will have to fight off the Mullahs and they know it, same with the Kurds and the Turks and the Sunni will have to figure out how to run Iraq's major cities with no oil revenue. The words of Ben Franklin are germane, "We must hang together or assuredly, we shall all hang separately." In that regard, they will continue to turn in the "foreign fighters" and the Iraqi gangsters and Saddam holdovers who are responsible for so much of the killing and mayhem.

Third, and certainly not last, these are all parallel efforts, we must continue to train and equip the security forces of Iraq and provide the security umbrella that is necessary for this new enterprise to grow.

We should not expect the new Iraq to emerge in a couple of U.S. news cycles, it will take time but it will happen. Iraq has more oil, natural gas, water, and arable land than any other country in the region. It is a potential economic powerhouse that will dwarf the other countries in that part of the world and the neighbours know that. Thus it is incumbent on us to make sure that this emerging regional giant grows to be a responsible, friendly nation in an area of the world that so desperately needs stability and good neighbors. Success in Iraq will make a long-standing contribution to the region and have tremendous impact in Iran and other troubled countries. Failure will plague generations all over the world for years to come. We have won the war, we need to win the peace.

FP: Thank you. One thing I am not certain about is when you say that we will “most certainly” round up Osama. We haven’t done this in 5 years and I am not sure what is so certain about us doing this in the future.

McInerney: I must agree with the previous speakers in spades so will not repeat their excellent points in detail. If UBL is in Iran we will probably not get him as he has a sanctuary which is probably why we have not gotten him yet. It would be great if we got him but let’s remember it is the ideology of Islamofascism that is the threat.

We are competing against a very sophisticated Media Plan by the Islamofascists that says to the moderates: “Don’t turn your back on me. Support me against these crusaders who want to take our oil and humiliate us. We the Islamofascists will restore your dignity and resist until victory so don’t betray us.”

This simple message is played daily to them and we are not countering it with a well- thought out action plan. So even if we get UBL we have to defeat the ideology with a counter-media plan that tells the truth. Saturation and repetition is diluting all the good things we are doing. If we got him it would be better to kill him while taking him so we don’t have the same travesty going on as with Saddam.

Unfortunately our justice system has fatal flaws. UBL is not innocent until proven guilty in a war. Chuck Nash got the WMD question SPOT ON. Saddam did have WMDs and they went to Syria and Lebanon with the Russians’ assistance. The Saddam tapes (14 Hours) translated by Bill Tierney verify he had them. It has also been verified that the Russians helped get them out.

We have to get the Media Counter plan right to counter Islamofascists’ media plan and then change the regime in Iran using covert operations and the letting Iranian people retake their country. We will have to have an air campaign to assist the covert campaign after going through a laborious diplomatic Kabuki dance similar to the one we did before Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Syria will be next but hopefully we can use the Libyan model, if not then regime change required using the Afghanistan model. Finally Saudi Arabia must start the process of leading an Islamic reformation from the Holy Cities to rid the earth of this vile form of Islam called Wahabiism which is the ideological doctrine for the Islamofascism. Remember it is as evil as Nazism, Fascism and Communism so it must be reformed from within before we have a clash of civilizations.

FP: So Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. But what if Saudi Arabia does not start that process? Also, how about Hamas leading the PA?

Gabautz: I think all of us agree that what is happening in Iraq involving the Islamic Extremists (terrorists) is a very dangerous situation. I guess I still cling to the hope that the tens of thousands of friendly Iraqis I met when I arrived in Iraq at the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom would still be there today. I would not be alive today if it were not for many Iraqis who risked their lives to save mine. Mainstream media simply fails to report the good coming out of Iraq.

Where is Osama? Most likely Iran (if he is alive), but in the scheme of things, it matters little. He will have his followers whether or not he is alive or dead. The Iranian leadership has the same mode of thinking that Osama has.

WMD is/was in Iraq after the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom. I went into Iraq as the first civilian Federal Agent and Arabic linguist. AFOSI has the best trained intelligence officers of any organization. I received decorations/awards during and after the war indicating I was the number one Intelligence collector in regards to Weapons of Mass Destruction and other terrorism issues. This is well documented. I and my fellow Agents (who were active duty) identified four highly suspected WMD sites in southern Iraq that ISG never exploited.

I blame especially one person for this intelligence foul up: Mr. Charles Duelfer. He failed to have his people exploit all the sites. He focused in northern Iraq. When Duelfer gave his speech to Congress on 30 Mar 2004, I knew (and anyone else who understands Arabs and the Middle East) that he was in way over his head and had no clue on how to work in the Middle East. He made one statement to Congress that confirmed this. Duelfer said, “One of the circumstances that struck me the most is the extreme reluctance of Iraqi managers, scientists, and engineers to speak freely”. He continues, “Before arriving in Iraq, I thought they would be more cooperative”. Wow! This is the guy who was leading the weapons inspectors.

It was at this time I fully realized why no WMDs had been found. The reason I was the number one collector of intelligence is because I went to the people who would talk and who really knew what was going on in their areas. I went to the former Iraqi police officers, the former mid and lower level Iraqi soldiers, the merchants, the farmers, the Bedouins, etc. I knew from the start that little intelligence would be obtained from senior Baath Party members.

On 16 Mar 2006, I had a meeting with Congressman Curt Weldon for over an hour. I provided him 15 plus pages of very detailed information to include exact grid coordinates and the names/contact numbers of Iraqis who can take inspectors directly to the WMD sites. If Congressman Weldon doesn't encounter "red tape", he will seek action on the WMD matter.

It has been a 3 year battle for me to get the sites inspected. I only hope that some of the WMDs that were at the sites were not exploited/taken by others (with Russian assistance). AFOSI needs to step forward and provide all of my intelligence reports to Congressman Weldon and Congressman Hoekstra.

My awards indicate I wrote over 80 intelligence reports while in Iraq on this subject. I received word about one month ago from an AFOSI Agent who is currently assigned to Tallil (now Ali Air Base) in Nasiriyah, that none of our electronic intelligence reports can be located (during the time Apr 2003 - July 2003). All reports were also sent to various agencies (to include DIA, DOD, ISG, etc). Find the 80 plus intelligence reports and you will find WMD or you will find evidence they had been removed by others. The Washington Times is currently interviewing me as well. I think in the next month we will know where the WMDs are.

In terms of the terror war, the only way we can ever win it is to continue coming down very hard on extremists, and to gain the support of the moderates. If we can’t do this we will have another September 11th.

Patterson: The question about OBL reminds me that two weeks ago the Democratic Party released their "national security agenda" for 2006 and 2008 containing lots of references to being "smart," and "tough" and "real." In fact, their agenda is not an agenda, its not even a plan, its overly-politicized pap. Not once in over a hundred-some pages did they mention the word "democracy." One of their key proposals is to (and I quote) "eliminate Osama bin Laden (and) destroy terrorist networks like al Qaeda." I'm not exactly sure what the Democrats think we've been doing for the last five years but my understanding and those of my buddies patrolling the Afghan-Pakistan border is exactly that. And as your distinguished guests have pointed out, to "eliminate" OBL would necessitate we either invade Iran or Pakistan or both...because if he's alive that's where he's hiding and, as such, has the sanctuary of these nations' sovereignty. Can't see the Dems who want us to pull out of Iraq immediately taking on that sort of thing.

Your question referencing the MSM, WMDs and Saddam's associations with Al Qaeda is also dead on. As your other panelists attest, Saddam had WMDs and moved them. There can be absolutely no doubt of that. Of course reality and truth doesn't fit their template or the MSM and the Left would have acknowledged that long ago. They're suffering an acute case of BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome). I can personally attest that, as a member of the Clinton administration from 1996-1998, I was fully aware of the existence of WMDs in Iraq as well at least a partially functioning nuclear weapons program. As CAPT Nash and General McInerney point out the weapons were moved to Syria and Lebanon.

In April of 2004, Jordanian officials interrupted an Al Qaeda plot to explode approximately 20 tons of chemical weapons in Amman which conceivably killed as many as 80,000 people. The leader of the planned attack was none other than Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi who was convicted by Jordan in absentia. Where did Al Qaeda get 20 tons of VX nerve gas? From Syria. Who made VX nerve gas prior to the foiled attack? Iraq. Doesn't take a lot of "dot-connecting" for me to draw a conclusion.

And if that's not enough of a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda how about these? Iraqi Intelligence Service documents, seized during the invasion in 2003, reveal bin Laden was considered an "asset" as far back as 1992. Saddam hosted and provided sanctuary to 1993 World Trade Center bomber Abdul Rahman Yasin immediately after that attack. In January 1998, Al Qaeda's #2 Ayman Zawahiri visited Saddam in Baghdad and left with $300,000. One month later, (one month!), bin Laden and Zawahiri announced their alliance and publicly declared war on the U.S. Later that year Iraqi Intelligence Service officers met with bin Laden in Afghanistan which conveniently coincided with OBL’s embassy bombings in Africa.

In fact, the Clinton administration’s 1998 Justice Department indictment of bin Laden was based on findings that “Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that Al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, Al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.” Richard Clarke, Clinton’s terror guru, asserted at the time that Saddam had offered bin Laden asylum in Iraq following the African bombings. Contrary to what Clarke would have us believe now he wrote a memo to Clinton National Security Advisor and renowned pant’s criminal Sandy Berger advising against U.S. surveillance flights over bin Laden’s camps in Afghanistan because we might tip him off and “alarmed with that knowledge…Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad.” (9/11 Commission Report, p. 134 and 135)

Of course, then there's the whole pesky Salman Pak terrorist training base Saddam sanctioned and funded and that Iraqi Intelligence Service operative Ahmed Hikmat Shakir attended the initial 9/11 planning meeting held in Malaysia in January of 2002. Heck, when he was injured in the fighting in Afghanistan in 2001, Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi accepted Saddam’s offer for medical treatment at his personal hospitable in Baghdad. But don't confuse our journalists with the facts. President Bush is the enemy here not totalitarian butchers or Islamofascists who continue to murder indiscriminately.

For America to prevail in Iraq and in this war for civilization, as CAPT Nash so accurately frames it, we as a nation will have to pull our collective heads out of our posteriors. We have drifted from a nation resolutely allied to one rendered impotent by bitter partisan bickering. All the while, our soldiers continue fighting heroically at every step enduring heartache and sacrifice; our enemies embolden themselves on the irresponsible rhetoric of liberal politicians and complicit media; and we march blindly toward another national tragedy. I hate to end on a somber note but how can anyone read the cockpit transcripts of United 93 and not understand the evil we face?

Unfortunately, many in my country can...and do. We stand on the verge of losing everything we believe in, everything our forefathers fought for, if we don't wake up. We're living in era very similar to 1935-1940. Will the Neville Chamberlain's carry the day or will Churchill and FDR? Seems to me an awful lot of Chamberlain's are having more than their fair share of influence.

FP: Captain Chuck Nash, Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney, Paul (Dave) Gaubatz, and Buzz Patterson, thank you for joining Frontpage Symposium.

"We must have the average Iraqi supporting us to win the war in Iraq. It is achievable, but we are going to have to go back to the rebuilding efforts and be with the people 24 hours a day. This will take more troops, but I see it as the only way."

This knowledgeable guy (one man's opinion) is that we will need more troops to make this work. I don't think he's talking about some marginal increase for a brief period of time, as may happen. I think he's talking about a substantial increase.

I do not think this is going to happen. The reason is domestic political considerations inside the United States. In general, Bush claims that he is simply listening to the military and they tell him what they need and he gives it to them.

I really do not believe it is quite that simple. I think the administration gives pretty strong signals to the military about what they want to hear---then they feed it back.

I'm sorry, but I just don't believe the American people are ready to embark in a new phase in Iraq, a long-term commitment of a larger number of troops---more closely involved with the Iraqi people (which would inevitably lead to significant US casualties, based on the current scale of significant casualties).

"Great article and analysis. Unfortunately, I think you hit the nail on the head. We won't do what has to be done because of the left's defeatist demands and lack of courage."

Thanks. Unfortunately, our current policy looks like "halfway in between" to me. We stopped all development funds (did you know?); we are not going to spend a penny more on building schools, building roads etc. We have failed to get a good government into Iraq utilizing democracy, primarily due to heavy Iranian infiltration and intimidation during the election process.

If we set realistic goals at this point---to just support the current government with enough military strength so they could hold on and after we pulled out---we might achieve it.

But the administration isn't tough-minded enough for this. so they will sit there occupying the country until November 2008. Do you really think our enemies inside Iraq will be unable to concoct a nasty surprise for us in October of 2008? They know about US presidential elections too.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.