Iraq War Explained
In previous posts I alluded to Iraq being part of the strategy in the War against Terrorism. But I don't think most people have a firm grasp of how that is, or what the strategy is, so let's discuss...

First and foremost, as the President himself has said, building a successful, (relatively) liberal democracy on Arab lands in the heart of the middle-east will be a game-changer in the fight against terrorism.

This was the one and only reason I supported Bush on Iraq. We will never contain the spread of WMD and WMD knowledge. It's just not possible to keep WMD knowledge bottled up, especially in the internet age, so containment of WMD is impossible. So instead we must destroy the people and the ideology who would use those WMD against us. By defeating the ideology, we defeat the WMD threat.

With American support and steadfastness, Afghanistan has just held their first democratic presidental election in their many thousand year history, in an extraordinary defeat of the extremists. Here we have our first case-study of the power of freedom, and it's ability to defeat extremism.

When January comes, and if the Iraqi vote can be achieved, and Iraqis vote against their former oppressors and determine for themselves the direction their country will take, this too will be another victory against the extremists, and further justification for the Bush strategy to defeat them.

We have a President who understands this, and who understands that the best way to fight terrorism is to give people living under dictatorships a better choice. And that choice is Freedom. And that's why we are in Iraq.

But what about WMD? That's why Bush said we attacked Iraq, right? Not exactly. Bush's decision to focus on the WMD threat was a 1) a legal justification for the war and 2) an effort to win allies and UN support for the action. In the pre-war negotiations, the WMD issue became very contentious, and that's why it became so prominent. But the impetus for the Iraq war was to bring Democracy to Iraq, as a beachhead to push Democracy throughout the Islamic world. And this holds the best option to destroy Islamic extremism. When Muslims have the choice between extemism and Democracy, they will choose Democracy, and extremism will wither away.

This is the essence of the Bush strategy to defeat Terrorism. (Does Kerry even have one?) And it's already been proven effective in Afghanistan. This is ultimately the reason why we invaded Iraq. Yes, there was strong evidence of a WMD threat. Yes, Saddam was building support to have sanctions lifted, so he could resume building WMD. Yes, there were connections with terrorists. Yes, Saddam was gruesomely torturing and murdering his own people. Yes, Saddam was funding Palestinian terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians. Yes, Saddam was a continuing threat to stability in the Middle East. Yes, the Iraq threat required us to station "infidel" soldiers on Saudi terrority, providing PR material for Osama. Yes, Saddam was a strong symbol of resistance to America. Yes, there were many good reasons to remove Saddam.

But the best reason was to bring Freedom and Democracy to the Middle East as part and parcel of the War on Terrorism. It's clear from the reaction of terrorists that they agree. They understand the stakes and the strategy -- they know that if we succeed in Iraq, it will be an unthinkable loss for them. As Al Zarqawi said,

We fight them, and this is difficult because of the gap that will emerge between us and the people of the land. How can we fight their cousins and their sons and under what pretext after the Americans, who hold the reins of power from their rear bases, pull back? The real sons of this land will decide the matter through experience. Democracy is coming, and there will be no excuse thereafter.

So even if Kerry and Edwards don't get it, America and her enemies agree on the importance of this fight in Iraq. While it seems that the Bush Adminstration didn't expect such a forceful response to our effort, it's now clear that Iraq is where the fight is.

It's understandable that this may seem strange. As the Kerry campaign says, two years ago Iraq had few direct links to terrorism which threatened America. So why are we fighting in Iraq?

From a lay person, this is a good question. But it's a frightening question when asked by someone who wants to President. For when one considers the history of war, it's easier to understand how this can happen.

Why did Napolean and the Duke of Wellington fight it out in Belgium at Waterloo, not England or France? Why did the most pivotal battle of the American Civil War occur in a nothing Pennsylvania town called Gettysburg? Why did America first invade Africa (not, ahem, Mexico) after Pearl Harbor? Why did major battles in the Cold War against the Soviet Union occur in obscure countries like Korea and Vietnam? Why did America wage a bloody battle against the German army outside of a tiny town in Belgium, in the Battle of the Bulge? None of these places seem entirely relevant to the major players in the respective conflicts, but for different reasons, history decided that those battles would be decided in these places. Similarly, history has decided that the Battle of Iraq will be a major part of the War against Islamic Extremism.

Thankfully for America, like General Meade at Gettysburg, we find ourselves in countrol of the high ground, and so we have several tactical advatages as a result. (And thankfully, for the time-being, we have a president who won't consider abandoning the high-ground.)

First of all, we are killing terrorists. While Clinton was President, thousands of extremists trained in Afghanistan to attack the West. While that didn't seem to bother us much at the time, we are now faced with the aftermath -- thousands of terrorists. So how are we supposed to find all of them, being incognito throughout the world or hidden in caves who-knows-where?

Well, that problem seems largely solved. Many of them have come to fight Americans in Iraq, and they're now largely surrounded in the Sunni triangle. We kill tens of them everyday, and in the next few months, we'll be killing a lot more.

But aren't we creating just as many new terrorists with our bellicose foreign policy? Perhaps, and invading Germany created many more German soldiers drafted from the civilian population. But in truth, if any, we are creating the sort of terrorist who will rush off to Iraq without any military training to face the full might of the American military. This is not a sane person. As Marine Corp. Sargeant Major Bergeron said, "This is the Perfect War. They want to die, and we want to kill them.” It is better that we expose and eliminate these people in Iraq, than have them plotting against American civilians.

Second, we are fighting the war against Muslim extremists on Arab soil, not ours. By occupying them in Iraq, terrorist resources are diverted from attacks on America. While it is painful to read of terrorist attacks on Iraqi civilians, would you prefer hundreds dead every week from car bombs in New York City? If this is too cynical for you, consider that while Iraqi civilians are bearing a heavy toll, their reward is liberation. And in the real world, Freedom has a price.

And while the extremists are occupied in Iraq, they are weak in Afghanistan. Therefore, in Afghanistan the Taliban has few allies and limited resources, and there was almost no resistance to the historic elections there that likely will keep re-elect President Karzai. This is a major victory for Afghanistan and for America.

It's not hard to imagine how this might be different without a war in Iraq. If we weren't fighting the terrorists in Iraq, we'd be fighting them in Afghanistan instead (if not America). The casualties would be in Afghanistan instead of Iraq. We'd be spending billions on reconstruction and security there instead of Iraq. Because the terrorist thrust wouldn't have been diverted, their violence would be focused there, and we would have many of the same problems we have in Iraq. In fact, given the difficult terrain in Afghanistan, as the Soviets discovered, it is fortunate for us that the terrorists decided to bring the battle to Iraq.

Third, the War in Iraq is separating moderate muslims from the extremists. In the War against Terrorism, sides are being delineated. Terrorists are now killing moderate muslims, and we are clearly on the side of the Iraqis. This is not good PR for the extremists who claim that all Muslims are one, and America is the enemy of Islam.

In the same vein, when the war in Iraq is won, and the world sees the better life that America has created for Iraqis, they will know that we stood on the side of Muslims. The ongoing Arab media slander of Americans against Muslims will not stand.

So Iraq has emerged as the central battle in the war against Islamic extremism. And we are very fortunate that this is the case, for we are reaping the aforementioned benefits in this fight. I understand how some of the American public don't see this, because they are busy with their lives, and under the constant barrage of constant media negativity, it can be difficult to see the forest through the trees.

But it's inexcusable that an aspiring Commander-in-Chief cannot understand this. The man who wants to lead America's fight against terrorism must be able to understand the nuance of having A Strategy. And while Kerry just doesn't seem to get it, because of Bush's leadership throughout the tough news this summer, we are close to victory.

But now it's up to America to see this reality through the obfuscation and distraction on WMD by the media and the Kerry campaign.

For if America elects John Kerry, our victory will be in peril. The terrorists in Iraq will receive a shot in the arm -- they will recognize their chance to win. They need only redouble their efforts to win the war in the media, to convince America what Kerry "knows" in his heart -- that Bush's war in Iraq is unwinnable. Then to the delight of the Europeans, the American media, and the American Left, after some attempts to "prove" that "he tried", Kerry will be "forced" to recognize the "inevitable". America will abandon Iraq, and Kerry will be a "hero".

So, America, we cannot risk a Kerry Presidency that would snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. This war has been difficult, but thus far America and her brave soldiers have proven their mettle. And we hold the high-ground and the momentum is on our side.

Consider a crude poker analogy: We have played through some difficult hands, but now we are holding a straight flush, and we've committed more than a few chips to this pot. There is no doubt that we will win this hand, this battle, unless we let ourselves be convinced by the nitpicking wife looking over our shoulder that this hand is a loser.

People -- Are we going to turn the cards over to John Kerry so he can fold them? Oh, I know he swears he won't, but he also says we shouldn't even be gambling in the first place. "Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time." And he's called this war a "mistake", and he still maintains we can't ask anyone "to be the last man to die for a mistake." And frankly, up to this point, his position on Iraq is whatever he thinks will get him elected. So can we trust him to be strong in Iraq?

Maybe, and I'd like to say we can, but the fact is that America cannot risk it. The stakes are way too high. We have all the advantages at this stage in the fight, as I detailed above -- We must let Bush finish the hand he is playing.

And when the terrorists in Iraq see that America has reelected Bush to finish them off, their spirit will be crushed. For then they know that America will never give up, and they will know that America will win the Battle of Iraq, and America will continue it's fight in the inevitable defeat of Islamic Tyranny.

Timeless words for difficult times: "Here we are, and here we stand, a veritable rock of salvation in this drifting world.... a new hope for the whole world."

"This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning." America, we must see this through to the End. "Our generation has now heard history's call, and we will answer it."

Never Forget.


Update
My analysis has been largely confirmed by the Washington Times.
- posted by The Dutchman @ 3:30:00 PM