If We Don't Fight Them There, We Will Fight Them Here

Lew Waters aka DakotaRed

[DakotaRed]

Right In A Left World

[DakotaRed]

Being stated as a “new slogan” in support of the War on Terror, the above seems more like a simple truth to me. While President Bush used it in his speech to the American Legion in Salt Lake City today, speaking to supporters of freedom and liberty around the country will produce the same exact thought.

President Bush stated it as; “We will fight the terrorists overseas so we do not have to face them here at home.”

Some on the left seem to feel it is failing slogan. There seems to be the thought that it is a silly notion. Almost immediately, Senator John Kerry, Failed 2004 Democrat Presidential candidate and anti-war activist from the 70s, was quoted as saying, “America’s veterans and American troops don’t need misleading speeches,” and “Enough with slogans and staged speeches calculated to divide here at home…” I totally disagree.

Recent captures in London and elsewhere shows that the Islamofascist terrorists are actively working towards their stated goal of World Domination. Suicide bombings and slaughter of Iraqis and Afghani’s that support allied efforts at helping build both societies into functioning Democracies shows their desire to dominate.

Attacks within America, twice now, and against our interests in other countries over the past 27 years shows me we are one of their main targets. By the diligent work of our NSA, FBI, CIA and others responsible for intelligence gathering, as well as a lot of pure old-fashioned luck (so far), a repeat of September 11, 2001 has not yet happened. How long will we remain this lucky?

Smaller events throughout the country have happened with perpetrators claiming to be either terrorists or attacking innocents out of revenge for our fighting terrorists or against Jews because they defended themselves. Local authorities have written each off as “non-terrorist related.” Even if on a minor scale, it seems they are still terrorist related to me.

Should we follow the lead of Democratic Party leaders calling for withdrawal, or redeployment as they call it, as we have continually done for the decades under their leadership, the slaughter of innocent Iraqis and Afghanis is assured. Not only that, our “eyes and ears” in these hot spots will very likely be included in that senseless slaughter. Terrorist goals of dominating and destroying Western Culture will not cease one iota. They will be free to operate in the Middle East as they did before, which resulted in planning and training the single worst terrorist act in history in New York a scant 5 years ago.

Back here in America, you can bet restrictions at airports and ports of entry will eventually be relaxed out of our natural complacency. Terrorists will once again be free to roam back and forth, training, planning, and performing dry runs, whatever. Contacts between sleeper cells in our country and the leadership in the Middle East will once again go unnoticed.

I need not state what the next massive attack could be like.

Democrat leaders are wrong. We cannot once again “cut and run” and leave a struggling ally to certain slaughter. In the past, our cowardice, or lack of resolve, if you will, only affected those in the countries we abandoned. This time, it will free the terrorists to transfer their war to our very streets, sidewalks, shopping centers, all over. We need to wake up and stay awake until this newest enemy is neutralized, however long it takes.

Fight them there or fight them here does make a good slogan, just as past wars produced excellent slogans. They were needed to keep our eyes open, keep us awake to the dangers approaching, and teach us we are vulnerable. It is also a very simple truth we need to be reminded of often, apparently.

Place it on bumper stickers, signatures in email and discussion groups, or simply speak it often. It is a message the rest of America needs to hear over and over again, IF WE DON’T FIGHT THEM THERE, WE WILL FIGHT THEM HERE

Lew

[bnelson44]

If you have not seen this elsewhere, read it now:
Vice Director Admiral Sullivan of the JCS Strategic Planning and Policy's take on the Long War. (PowerPoint Presentation)

[HitmanLV]

The problem with that is, 1. we are fighting them here, and 2. when the inevitable escalation of terrorist events statside happens, it sounds like we were talking out of our @sses when we say it.

Needs refinement.

[ClaireSolt]

I was just thinking how unserious and frivolous the Democrats comments are. The subject of appeasement is just name-calling. Everything else is dismissed as politics. The so-called slogan above was in every Bush stump speech in 2004. This is serious stuff and they are just spitting sound bites out of their spin rooms.

[HitmanLV]

Mark Steyn said in during the day he subbed for Rush that the dems haven't even bought an admission ticket to the war against Islamic terrorism. He's right - they haven't offered anything substantive, just taking (inconsistent) shots at the admin.

[DakotaRed]

Of course refinement is necessary. My thought is that like WW2, slogans were used to drive home the impact to the people that we were at war. Loose lips sink ships, Keep mum, she's not so dumb, and several others.

Our society, with it's desire for instant gratification, tends to forget what we are involved in. The Democrats have spun this as unnecessary and a diversion, weakening us.

I see it as the opposite, but that's me. Others feel it is a waste and they rely on the spoon fed pablum from the lamestream media and leftists.

Simple slogans helped keep support strong in the 1940s and I see no reason they won't again.

And yes, we are fighting them here already, but not the bloody type of warfare we have going on in Iraq. Should we allow the Dems to abandon Iraq and withdraw our troops before they have succeeded, that warfare will transfer to our streets in time.

[HitmanLV]

The warfare will transfer to our streets in time anyway. Things probably will have to get worse before they get better.

[truth_seeker]

"The warfare will transfer to our streets in time anyway. Things probably will have to get worse before they get better."

The higher-ups in the islamic leadership probably don't want to rile the US up any more, than they have already.

They remember Yamamota. And they have seen what happens when they strike us directly. Afghanistan and Iraq.

Their near term prospects are better overseas, where the US must reach with long logistical paths, and suffer dissent at home.

They want us to NOT be united, which would result from hitting us hard at home.
Meanwhile they can make advances abroad--Iranian nukes, ongoing Sudanese terror unchecked by an impotent UN, etc.

Plus phony photos in Lebanon, printed worldwide--not refuted by the Bush administration.

The single most important aspect is to elect a STRONG WARRIOR as the next President.

Just my take.

[Marius3188]

That's one of the President's mistakes has been not 'nationalizing' the War.

There is no war posters in any of the post offices or federal buildings, basically he's told us to shop while he takes care of the War.

Offer War bonds, put a WOT tax credit on a IRS form. Have a Civilian Air Patrol that flies the Southern Border. Encourage Hollywood to put out 'why we fight' type movies thats put in Movie theaters.

Invite the Rats to go on a Trip to Iraq and Afghanistan with him. Put them in a tough situation of not going with him or going with him and then it supports our cause.

[srmorton]

One of my good friends and co-workers has been reading Tom Friedman's book The Earth Is Flat. He has really been urging me to read it (which I have no intention of doing). We usually avoid talking about politics because he is as liberal as I am conservative, but he brought the book up again to me this week.

He said that we just need to elect a "strong leader" to lead the US toward energy independence. When he said that, another co-worker who is very liberal but is still too young to know better, said "I hope you don't mean Bush". (She is a Bushater who doesn't mind saying so in our very patriotic military town.) My friend said that he did not care if he/she was a Democrat or a Republican, just as long as he was able to accomplish this goal. It was useless for me to mention how the Democrats have done everything in their power to interfere with our achieving energy independence for years (i.e., opposing drilling in ANWAR and offshore drilling, opposing building any new oil refineries, discouraging nuclear power, ridiculous EPA regulations, etc.).

What really got me about the conversation is that he sincerely believes that, if we no longer need oil from Muslim countries, they would have to start getting along with us. They would have no more hold on us and would be motivated to try to improve their standing among the civilized nations of the world.

This man has a Ph.D. from a major university and is extremely intelligent. He is a compassionate Christian who is a member of my church and is very active as a member of the choir, as a Sunday School teacher, etc. I told him that these people want to KILL us. They will not be happy until the entire world is converted to Islam. But my friend, like most liberals, just does not get it. He does not see that this GWOT is not a fight to control Middle Eastern oil. It is a fight to preserve civilization as we know it. The naivete and blindness of the left concerning this issue never ceases to amaze me!

[decal]

If the Dems get their way, not only will we not be fighting them there, we won't fight them HERE, either.

The Dems have gone so long without thinking that their reasoning faculties have atrophied - any concept of actions and consequences are completely beyond them now.

So, the easiest way is always the best way, as far as they're concerned, and what could be easier than total capitulation?

[truth_seeker]

"This man has a Ph.D. from a major university and is extremely intelligent."

A study just published noted the highest levels of education were found in Seattle and San Francisco, which proves college degrees confer no common sense.

As one with two degrees, I hold no grudge against people getting educations. Mine are liberal arts, and business; from over 30 years ago.

But today education seems to introduce a feeling of self-satisfaction and importance, way beyond any ability to grasp real simple things, like war, evil, danger, even survival.

My age means I had parents and grandparents that spoke of experience about service in WWI and WWII. Internment of Japanese origin people in SoCal was taken as a realistic precaution; not some egregious violation of civil rights.

Why was that? Because uneducated people were under blackouts in LA, fearing justifiably attack by Japan. Japan fired on the coastal oilfields near Santa Barbara/Ventura (Elwood) and on the Oregon coast.

So common sense today would result in massive deportations of muslims. And would likewise argue for all-out war status, including congressional war declarations, draft, increased taxation, possible rationing, etc.

I remember the phrase from the Vietnam era of "guns and butter." Lest we disrupt everybody's peacable complacency, we fail to respond fully and forcibly.

On 9/12/2001 I would have invaded Saudi Arabia to secure oil. After all, several of the terrorists came from there.

The muslims have been spared the price of their fellow citizens' deeds, by the non-state aspect of their political movement.

By failing to call it religious, and by failing to hold states accountable, we are playing by their clever rules.

Before it is over, those two barriers may have to fall.

Kumbaya won't cut it with these cut-throats. The UN and many allies are worthless. We can probably count on Britain, Australia, perhaps Japan and India.

As others get hit, maybe my list expands. It will go on, until the muslim states round up their terrorists and kill them, imprison their families, shut down inciteful mosques.

[nathanbedford]

And if we do fight there we will still have to fight from here.

There may be strategic reasons to fight in Iraq, but to do so because we are exterminating would-be terrorists who otherwise would be striking the homeland is utterly ridiculous. We can fight Iranians, Iraqis, Syrians, Chechens, Sunni, and Shi'ites until we are utterly exhausted and we will not have come to the end of Islam's infinite supply of willing terrorists. If that is our policy, it is the policy of shoveling flies.

We cannot so preoccupy the enemy in Iraq that he cannot find another 19 Saudi's (or Pakistanis, or Algerians, or pick your poison) to strike at our homeland.

Ultimately, it must be Muslims themselves who exterminate the terrorists in their midst. In this regard, a defeat in Iraq would so distort the the perception of the balances of power that we would be very unlikely to enlists rational Muslims in our crusade against the crazies.

A thousand times more important than the war in Iraq is the struggle to prevent Iran from getting the bomb. If you want the Saudis to stop funding schools for terrorists, if you want the precarious government of Pakistan to root out Al Qaeda in the mountains, if you want the Syrians to cease arming and supporting Hezbollah, you had better not let the Iranians get the bomb.

So we are in a terrible dilemma. We cannot afford to fail in Iraq for that makes us even weaker in the eyes of the Muslim world and makes it virtually impossible to prevent Iran from obtaining the bomb. But the more we fight in Iraq the more attenuated and weakened our ground forces become. We have reached the point now where generals are telling Congress that our matériel and manpower are approaching the breaking point. It is difficult to intimidate Iran when the whole world knows we lack the military muscle, the will, and the support of our allies and world opinion to force a regime change in Iran.

Instead of tipping the balance of power in the Middle East in our favor, Iraq has succeeded in insulating Iran from American power while making us vulnerable to attrition by Iran's proxies

Flame away.

[ZULU]

At this point, we will have tofight them THERE and HERE.

"They" are in BOTH places, thanks to our open-door, business as usual immigration policies.

[ClaireSolt]

Even here where people are certainly better informed than average there isn't much sense of what the war on terror is or what it is accomplishing,. A good indicator of what we are accomplishing is the cooperation and coordination that foiled the plot to blow up the ten airliners last month. That could not have been done on 9/11. The idea that our standing in the world is diminished is ridiculous. Bush has led 70 nations to cooperate in many ways. Look who is fighting in Afghanistan and volunteering in Lebanon if you want to see how much Europe has wised up and pitched in since the Iraqi invasion.

As for energy independance, learn more. Only 7% of America's oil comes from the Middle East. If our policies protect oil, it is for the Europeans, not us. Bush is the only president ever to push for a national energy policy, and the work on alternatives begun by Carter is bearing fruit. Every conceivable energy source is expanding geometrically except Anwar. Join the alternate energy ping list if you want to learn. High oil and gas prices stimulate expansion of wind, solar, oil sands, exploration ets. Gasoline demand is down a little over the summer.

[ZULU]

"Even here where people are certainly better informed than average there isn't much sense of what the war on terror is or what it is accomplishing,."

Most Americans, including many administration officials, apparently know as much about Islam and its tenets as they know about Quantum Physics and String Theory.

"A good indicator of what we are accomplishing is the cooperation and coordination that foiled the plot to blow up the ten airliners last month. That could not have been done on 9/11. "

True.

"The idea that our standing in the world is diminished is ridiculous."

Like it or not, everybody hates the top dog. But if the top dog has the biggest teeth and knows how to use them, the rest of the pack stays in shape.

"Bush has led 70 nations to cooperate in many ways. "

True to a degree. Some won't be led and must be beaten into submission. There Bush doesn't seem to get it. Hezbollah should have been exterminated by the Israelis with U.S. help. The fact that Hezbollah is still alive, despite the damage they have brought upon Lebanon, has raised their standing in the eyes of Muslims.

"Look who is fighting in Afghanistan and volunteering in Lebanon if you want to see how much Europe has wised up and pitched in since the Iraqi invasion."

If Hezbollah had been destroyed, we wouldn't need a force as unreliable as a U.N. directed cadre of Frenchmen et al to ultimately provide a smokescreen and hostages for Hezbollah. This was a stupid idea until Hezbollah had been destroyed.

"As for energy Independence, learn more. Only 7% of America's oil comes from the Middle East."

True. But some of it comes from Nigeria - threatened by Islamic terrorists, and from Venezuela - threatened by Chavez. Also, the oil companies are international cartels interested in the highest bang for their buck, not patriotic American firms like Winchester and Colt were. They will gladly sell our oil to other customers for a higher price if they market is created by Middle Eastern troubles.

"If our policies protect oil, it is for the Europeans, not us."

Indirectly, for reasons outlined above, it protects us too. But that's fine with me. I have an imperialist streak and see no problem with protecting one's own best interests whenever it is necessary. I think that is what a nation state is all about.

"Bush is the only president ever to push for a national energy policy, .."

True. But he should be using the blocking tactics of the Dems as a cudgel to beat them over the head in the midterms. This Administration has been one of history's most inept in using facts to deflect nonsense from the opposition.

"and the work on alternatives begun by Carter is bearing fruit. "

I don't think Jimmy Carter EVER did anything worthwhile except to get beaten by Ronald Reagan after his first disgraceful term. He lost Iran and created all kinds of havoc and is still embarrassing America.

"Every conceivable energy source is expanding geometrically except Anwar. "

Again, I think the Administration should be beating the Dems and RINOs over the head on the high price of energy and their failure to approve drilling in ANWAR.

"High oil and gas prices stimulate expansion of wind, solar, oil sands, exploration etc."

They also drive down the economy, reduce consumer spending on other products, and cause massive hemorrhaging of U.S. export dollars - not that our current practice of importing so much from Red China doesn't do so also.

"Gasoline demand is down a little over the summer."

Americans have had to make painful choices while oil company profits soared. I can't believe the oil cartels don't keep looking at Europe and European prices with the intent of making gasoline and energy costs here rise to meet the prices in the European market, and destroy the American standard of living in the process.

[Fishrrman]

nathanbedford writes:
There may be strategic reasons to fight in Iraq, but to do so because we are exterminating would-be terrorists who otherwise would be striking the homeland is utterly ridiculous. We can fight Iranians, Iraqis, Syrians, Chechens, Sunni, and Shi'ites until we are utterly exhausted and we will not have come to the end of Islam's infinite supply of willing terrorists. If that is our policy, it is the policy of shoveling flies.

Well said.

Regardless of how well-intentioned G.W. Bush (and the rest of the Republicans) is at this point, he is mired in the wars and struggles of the past and currently, so are we.

And so long as we believe we can "win" by targeting nation-states in this struggle, WE are the side that is doomed to lose.

This is not a war between nations.
It is a battle for the human heart.

Recall the ancient symbol of the Yin and the Yang. On one side is The West, with all the good we have worked and struggled to achieve over 2,000+ years. On the other side is Islam, which represents nearly the exact _opposite_ of the light of Western progress. Our side would go forward, theirs wishes to drag us back towards the eigth century.

This conflict might be easily resolved if only it _were_ nation states that needed to be overthrown.

But Islam is a curse upon the heart of mankind that infects the souls of millions beyond the borders of any one nation-state.

This is why "regime change" won't work, and is all but meaningless. The "regime" with which we are at war is not one of men.

It is Allah's "regime" which must be "changed"....

- John

[ClaireSolt]

Feel better. I don't see any point.