al quaida is celebrating its victory in the 2006 US Elections and hopes to have genocides in full swing throughout the world in a few years.
It is interesting how so much of the propaganda generated by radical Islam matches to the propaganda of modern progressives. It is almost as if many of the revolutionary leaders of radical Islam went to school in the west. Oh, wait a second. Many of them did learn their revolutionary thinking in modern leftist schools.
The big similarities that I see in this Yahoo report is that the al qaida propagandists repeat the same attacks on Bush's intelligence that Nancy Pelosi successfully used in her rise to power..
Anyway, while listening to the post 2006 election reports, I am startled by the large number of reporters who accept that a complete withdrawl from Iraq is a done deal.
Changing direction does not necessarily mean surrender. It could mean that we try to find different ways to fight the enemy.
A much smarter idea is to stay in Iraq, but to simply move our troops out of harm's way. Bush's course involved directly engaging terrorists. Chaning course could mean that we leave offensive engaging the enemy to the Iraqis. Our forces would stay in Iraq but would be in well defended places. In other words, we get out of the businesses of trying to protect the Iraqis from themselves. We would only be there to help prevent an invasion from Iran and our forces would really only be in places that we have well defended.
The idea that the 2006 election means we must retreat is very naive.
Lets quickly review the problem: Al quaida and other terrorist groups are willing to kill millions of civilians to take power. This war in Iraq is simply one where terrorists kill civilians by the thousands while we watch in horror and want to get out. If we follow our impulse and set the precedence that we will retreat whenever we encounter a force willing to kill large numbers of people, we will eventually end up surrending the whole world to these forces.
Yes, surrending will stop our newspapers from reporting the killings. It does not stop the actual killings. When we followed John Kerry in a retreat from Vietnam, our press stopped giving us daily reports on the deaths in Vietnam and Cambodia. However, after the retreats, the there was an exponential increase in the killings. Not seeing the killings reported in the paper does not mean they did not happen.
So, lets say we give Iraq to Al Quaida. The terrorists will see that their technique of killing large numbers of innocent civilians is successful. They will then start killing tens of of thousands of people in Afghanistan. Because we can't stand reading about murders, we will follow John Kerry in another retreat and give that country back to the Taliban. Next the terrorists will move on to Saudia Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE, etc.. Terrorists will start killing tens of thousands of people in these countries until we retreat. With the Mideast secure, the Arab terrorists will be in the position to practice their mojo in Spain, France and Turkey.
The technique is simple. If you are willing to kill large numbers of people, the west will run, just as the West ran from Rwanda, Sudan, Cambodia, Vietnam and Somalia. Any fool who stands up to the tides of history, as Bush tried, will simply be labeled by the left as an incompetent.
Now, most of the Democrats who won in 2006 are moderates. They are not seeking a Kerry style retreat. The fact that our left leaning press is treating the election as a victory for the left leaning al quaida is really absurd.
The 2006 Democratic victory should be reconized as an opportunity to create a bipartisan policy to support the struggling young democracy in Iraq. The yammering of talking heads who've concluded that we have no option except retreat might create a self fulfilling prophesy.