Iraq is battlefield for war vs. terror

Chicago Sun Times ^ | August 24, 2003 | Mark Steyn

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

Iraq is battlefield for war vs. terror August 24, 2003 BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST Among the more comical moments of a grim week was the sight of the president of the Security Council expressing his condemnation of the terrorist attack on the UN. He was the representative of Syria. Syria is a terrorist state. Syrians have flooded across the border into Iraq to take up arms with their beleaguered Baathist brethren. It would not be surprising to discover a Syrian connection to one or both of Tuesday's terrorist strikes in Baghdad and Jerusalem. But Syria happens to hold the presidency of the Security Council, so a fellow who's usually the apologist for terrorists gets to go on TV to represent the international community's determination to stand up to terrorism. Well, that's the luck of the draw at the UN, where so far this year Libya, Iraq and Syria have found themselves heading up the Human Rights Commission, the Disarmament Committee and the Security Council. The UN's subscription to this charade may be necessary in New York, but what's tragic is that they seem to have conducted their affairs in Baghdad much the same way. Offers of increased U.S. military protection were turned down. Their old Iraqi security guards, all agents of Saddam's Secret Service there to spy on the UN, were allowed by the organization to carry on working at the compound. And sitting in the middle of an unprotected complex staffed by ex-Saddamite spies was Sergio Vieira de Mello, the individual most directly credited with midwifing East Timor into an independent democratic state. Osama bin Laden (or rather whoever makes his audiocassettes) and the Bali bombers have both cited East Timor as high up on their long list of grievances: the carving out, as they see it, of part of the territory of the world's largest Islamic nation to create a mainly Christian state. Now they've managed to kill the fellow responsible. Any way you look at it, that's quite a feather in their turbans. But it doesn't really matter who's actually to blame--Baathist Iraqis or al-Qaida Saudis. As far as the world's press is concerned, the folks who are really to blame are the Americans. It's the Americans' fault because: a) They made Iraq so insecure their own troops are getting picked off every day; b) OK, fewer are being picked off than a few weeks back, but that's only because the Americans have made their own bases so secure that only soft targets like the UN are left; c) OK, the UN's a soft target only because they turned down American protection, but the Americans should have had enough sense just to go ahead and install the concrete barriers and perimeter trenches anyway; d) OK, if they'd done that, the beloved UN would have been further compromised by unduly close association with the hated Americans, which is probably what got them killed in the first place. In other words, whatever happens, it's always evidence of American failure. That's the only ''root cause'' most of the West is interested in. Anyone who thinks Tuesday's events might strengthen the international community's resolve to resist terrorism is overlooking the fact that among the Europeans, the Canadians and New Zealanders, the British and Australian press, CNN and the New York Times and a large majority of the Democratic Party, the urge to surrender is palpable. At the moment, there's only one hyperpower (the United States), one great power (the United Kingdom) and one regional power (Australia) that are serious about the threat of Islamist terrorism. There's also Israel, of course, but Israel's disinclination to have its bus passengers blown to smithereens is seen as evidence of its ''obstinacy'' and unwillingness to get the ''peace process'' back ''on track.'' What a difference it would make if one or two other G-7 nations were to get serious about the battle and be a reliable vote in international councils. But who? France? It's all business to them, unless al-Qaida are careless enough to blow up the Eiffel Tower. Canada? Canadians get blown up in Bali, murdered in Iran, tortured in Saudi Arabia, die in the rubble of the UN building in Baghdad--and their government shrugs. Belgium? They'd rather issue a warrant for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld than Chemical Ali. And so on Tuesday, up against an enemy unable to do anything more than self-detonate outside an unprotected facility and take a few Brazilian civil servants and Canadian aid workers with him, the global community sent out a Syrian ambassador to read out some boilerplate and then retreated into passivity and introspection and finger-pointing at Washington. This is the weirdly uneven playing field on which the great game is now fought. Islamic terrorism is militarily weak but ideologically confident. The West is militarily strong but ideologically insecure. We don't really believe we can win, not in the long run. The suicide bomber is a symbol of weakness, of a culture so comprehensively failed that what ought to be its greatest resource--its people--is instead as disposable as a firecracker. But in our self-doubt the enemy's weakness becomes his strength. We simply can't comprehend a man like Raed Abdel Mask, pictured in the press last week with a big smile, a check shirt and two cute little moppets, a boy and a girl, in his arms. His wife is five months pregnant with their third child. On Tuesday night, big smiling Raed strapped an 11-pound bomb packed with nails and shrapnel to his chest and boarded the No. 2 bus in Jerusalem. The terrorists watch CNN and the BBC and, understandably, they figure that in Iraq America, Britain, the UN and all the rest will do what most people do when they run up against someone deranged: back out of the room slowly. They're wrong. There's no choice. You kill it here, or the next generation of suicide bombers will be on buses in Rotterdam, Manchester, Lyons, and blowing up the UN building in Manhattan. This is the battlefield.

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

I know there are many groups and individuals pushing their jihads, but there are far more groups and individuals fed up with the nitwit jihadists and fighting back - most particularly the far more powerful COALITION of the willing.

Contrary to the left-press daily lies, we are suffering very few casualties in Iraq. Most of the nation IS stabilized. We are taking out the bad guys in numbers daily. We are winning.

It has been 5 SHORT months since our troops marched toward Baghdad. The press continues to be their biggest stumbling block - not the terrorists, the Fedayeen or the common criminals....the PRESS.

The left-press wants Bush to lose, and the UN to win...damn the longsuffering Iraqis who are working beside us, facing enemies that murdered their loved ones. The left-press spits on the troops - ignores their daily successes and hypes every problem - and endangers their lives by also giving our enemies a false sense of hope for a future they do not have in Iraq. The left-press ignores the genocidal history of the Husseins and the neglect and destruction of Iraq under SADDAM that WE are fixing today.

It's all about power for the left-press - and with the left, religion, as we know it, is irrelevant.

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

When Jesse Helms retired, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee became a pro-UN, anti-American body. The press, of course, sides with the UN.

Our Generals not only have to conduct a war and be concerned with every troop on the ground, they have to beg the likes of Joe Biden for money enough to do it. NO thanks from most of OUR Senators for the awesome work this military - from the CIC down - is doing. No, they seem to prefer the NY Times or Newsweek version of events. Read the transcript and fume on behalf of our military.

We need to be far more vigilant of those holding the purse strings and effecting international relations.

[MEG33]

I agree about the madrassas and the teaching of hate.The hijackers on 911,however, were educated,middle class and had travelled.It is the hatred in their cult that burns in their souls.

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

BS, caltrop. Sorry. Not according to those actually DOING the work inside Iraq. Not according to the Iraqi people.

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

He's amazing, isn't he? He knows this is serious and that the games of the left are threatening the civilized world.

[GOPJ]

Impotent whining and endlessly pleading our pathetic case? We're acting like a powerless partner in a bad marriage, not a moral and just superpower.

Let's dump the martyr stance and do what's right. If we're going to be condemned, let's be condemned for something worthwhile. The world respects power. Iraq needs to be given an American style constitution -- freedom of religion, free speech, the whole ball of wax. For those too shy to believe it's OK to impose a moral and decent systme on an oppressed people, we can leave in ten years. Leave and let the Iraqis dump any parts of the constitution they don't want. ( my guess: they'll keep most of it).

This is the weirdly uneven playing field on which the great game is now fought. Islamic terrorism is militarily weak but ideologically confident. The West is militarily strong but ideologically insecure. We don't really believe we can win, not in the long run.

[GOPJ]

Impotent whining and endlessly pleading our pathetic case? We're acting like a powerless partner in a bad marriage, not a moral and just superpower.

Let's dump the martyr stance and do what's right. If we're going to be condemned, let's be condemned for something worthwhile. The world respects power. Iraq needs to be given an American style constitution -- freedom of religion, free speech, the whole ball of wax.

For those too shy to believe it's OK to impose a moral and decent systme on an oppressed people, we can leave in ten years. Leave and let the Iraqis dump any parts of the constitution they don't want. ( my guess: they'll keep most of it).

This is the weirdly uneven playing field on which the great game is now fought. Islamic terrorism is militarily weak but ideologically confident. The West is militarily strong but ideologically insecure. We don't really believe we can win, not in the long run.

[American in Israel]

The Islamic Empire is destroying its bravest and most foolish men at the same time. Geneticly they are culling the herd and producing a more generic form of sheeple. Hero's are the great statesmen of a culture. By killing off their heros for the media, Islam is destroying any hope for a future.

You see the same effect in the Palestinian political party, quick to rage and dance for the camaras, but no opposing answers. You can also see it in the fact that they produce no exportable product. The best has been culled a long time ago, all that is left is raging dunderheads, easy to make dance, but producing nothing either.

Japan sealed its fate in world war II when it burned its pilots for kamakazis, then when the fleets got close to the mainland, they had no defenses. They had destroyed their own airforce. They could make more planes, but had no experienced pilots left to fly them.

Islam is in its death throws, but then as the West abandons its moral base and turns to socialism it is a race to the finish after all.

Who will self destruct first?

[lainde]

Thanks for the ping!

[American in Israel]

Unfortunately, while I obviously agree with some of your characterizations, I can't agree with you on the Iraq situation. By occupying Iraq, we've agrravated all the conditions we should have been attempting to mitigate.

You do not mitigate a man coming for you with a gun, you stop him or die. There is the problem with the liberal idea of trying to negotiate a peace with a man who is willing to blow himself up to kill you. After dozens and dozens of city buses blown up, and very few military targets hit, one realizes that the enemy is not brave and cowardly at the same time, he is cowardly and foolish at the same time.

Liberals are the foolish cowards on our side, and their ideas are no less suicidal.

[windchime]

"He's amazing, isn't he?"

Always!

While looking for a picture of Shanab to jog my daughter's memory of which Hamas mouthpiece he was, I found a site that reminded me of you. It seems to deal primarily with Israeli news, but they're fighting the same battle with accuracy in media that we are. Link is:

http://camera.org/

[maica]

The left-press ignores the genocidal history of the Husseins and the neglect and destruction of Iraq under SADDAM that WE are fixing today.

When is the last time any of the press or any of the "war is not the answer" crowd,have mentioned the "5000 Iraqi children dying every month because of the UN sanctions?"

I think the US chould take credit for halting this 'slaughter,' and just give a great big raspberry to the naysayers.

[happygrl]

Well said.

Thanks for all the good news you provide.

[Huck]

By occupying Iraq, we've agrravated all the conditions we should have been attempting to mitigate... We've further intervened in the Middle East even beyond our taking sides in the Israeli - Palestinian War...additional fuel for increased terrorism... if it turns out badly (likely in my view) we'll have further encouraged our adversaries... this outcome would turn the neocons' triumph in suckering us into Iraq into what would be, from their standpoint, a disaster.

Hey Chris, don't you have some work to do getting ready for tonight's Hardball?

[caltrop]

I had no desire to negotiate with Saddam, I'd have ignored him. The Saudis, Iranians, Turks, etc. were capable of keeping him in his box. Saddam was no threat to the US.

The bombings in Israel, which I presume you're referring to, are a separate issue. Unlike the Iranians, which we know send arms to the Palestinians, Saddam only paid the suicide bombers' families $25,000 for each bombing. By Arab standards, that support of the Israeli-Palestinian War is (I think) pretty modest.

The War in Iraq is, IMHO, a fool's errand. Even if we'd been able to win it in a day at absolutely no cost it would have been a mistake. The problems we're seeing in Iraq were all predictable and are only the tip of the iceberg. If we can get the UN to take this tarbaby off our hands we should do so, regardless of the terms the UN seeks. The sooner we leave, the better.

[WaterDragon]

The Western socialist nations, which is about all of them except America, despise us because they've waited, disappointedly, for us to fail as they've predicted for two hundred years. So, they now believe the Muslim terrorists are just the ticket to finally do us in, and they'll help!

They figure that once America falls, they'll handle the Muslims just fine because Muslims after all are very backward people, not like the brilliant, sophisticated Europeans!

This is how their thinking goes. The stupes will go under if we don't save ourselves, and in the process them, too....again!

[Moose4]

Beautiful article.

Once more, for those in the back of the classroom...

The terrorist leaders watch CNN and the BBC and, understandably, they conclude that in Iraq America, Britain and all the rest will do what most people do when they run up against someone deranged: back out of the room slowly.

They're wrong. There's no choice. You kill it here, or the next generation of suicide bombers will be on buses in Rotterdam, Manchester, Lyons, and blowing up the UN building in Manhattan. This is the battlefield.

}:-)4