A SOLDIER'S PERSPECTIVE
THE WEB'S LEADING MILITARY BLOG SINCE 2004
As a Soldier, there are few things more frustrating than this. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence that this country’s war on terrorism is producing tangible results, the media has to find something else to minimize its value. Upon reading the very first paragraph, one would think there’s cause for celebration:
President George W. Bush’s administration has crippled al Qaeda’s ability to carry out major attacks on U.S. soil but at a political and economic cost that could leave the country more vulnerable in years to come, experts say.
First of all, who cares about politics? It’s the tradecraft of politicians who are self-serving and who’s only motivation is their lust of power. I’m talking about ALL politicians with few exceptions. Personally, I don’t subscribe to the “well, we haven’t been hit since 9/11″ argument to support our successes. By that logic, one could say that Clinton did a great job fighting terrorism since we weren’t really hit on US soil between the 1993 WTC bombing and 9/11 (even though we got lucky catching al-Qaida operative Ahmed Ressam with a truck full of explosives in 1999 – he was an AQ idiot). The bigger argument is that we have them on the run, unable to regroup and even plan such attacks.
Second, our economy is the best it’s been in years. Unemployment is at all-time lows. The economy is booming. The dollar has made advances in many world markets. The Middle East is more stable with Saddam’s regime out of the picture. Iraq is selling more oil than it has in the past 37 years!! The Dow Jones continues to shatter records. Yes, the war is costing valuable money, which the Democrats seem to care a lot about. But, that doesn’t seem to stop the top three presidential candidates from raising over $65 million in the first quarter alone!! I bet Walter Reed could use a lot of that money. $65 million could buy a lot of much needed equipment for the National Guard. Instead of raising money for those things, they want to subsidize $24 million for spinach farmers, $1.2 billion for dairy farmers, $20 million to fight crickets in Nevada, and $100 million for convention security. In all, the DEFENSE SPENDING BILL contains over $20 billion for non-defense pet projects.
Two terrorist havens have been neutralized so far. While the fight in Iraq is still ongoing, their main base of operations – Afghanistan – is not longer a plausible locale. They’ve been forced into neighboring countries like Pakistan, Iran and Syria. Iraq is quickly becoming an unwelcome AQ vacation spot.
Who are these experts that Reuters touts throughout their smear piece? The article says “experts including current and former intelligence officials believe the group would have a hard time staging another September 11 because of U.S. success at killing or capturing senior members whose skills and experience have not been replaced.” Doesn’t that sound like a good thing?
The article even states, “Home-grown extremists in the United States are believed to be isolated and lacking the will or ability to carry out large-scale operations.” This is good for the Bush administration, but our liberal, biased media quickly devolves into negativity.
Some experts warn that the successes of Bush’s war on terrorism have been undercut by huge security costs, strains on the U.S. military from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and resentment of the United States abroad.
“Look at al Qaeda’s plans,” said Michael Scheuer, who once led the CIA team devoted to finding al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. “They’re very simply defined in two phrases: spread out America’s forces and bleed the United States to bankruptcy. I’d argue America has been under attack successfully every day since 9/11 from that perspective.
“If you’re looking at it from the cave, or wherever al Qaeda is hiding at the moment, you have to be pretty happy with the way the world is moving,” he said.
And if you’re the media or a Democrat, you have to be pretty happy too. After all, this is going to get them elected isn’t it? What better way for the Democrats to win office than to completely lose at every possible opportunity? What do the Democrats have to gain by the US winning the war (or campaign, or whatever you want to call it) against terrorism? EVERYTHING!! The worse Bush looks, supposedly the better they look. Doesn’t matter that they’re undermining what I’ve done and my brothers and sisters are currently doing. To hell with success, they want the White House.
More confusing than anything about this article is the final paragraph. But, before I quote it, allow me to again paste the first paragraph of this article:
President George W. Bush’s administration has crippled al Qaeda’s ability to carry out major attacks on U.S. soil.
Now, here’s the last sentence of the article:
“Our leading thinking is that we are closer now to an attempt at a major attack in the United States than at any point since 9/11,” IntelCenter chief executive Ben Venzke said.
So, which is it? This entire article is one huge irony. Terrorists are trembling in their holy stockings and jihad rags. Terrorists attacks overseas have LARGELY dropped since Saddam was removed from power. The entire world is safer because we are in Iraq. Innocent targets are being ignored and pushed aside so that these guys can have a go at Americans on their turf. To quote my Commander in Chief, “Bring it on.” I’d much rather terrorists target me and my armed and heavily defended brothers and sisters than innocent people going about enjoying their lives. I’d rather 50 Soldiers die if it saves the life of one innocent.
Well, I, for one, will take this article as a compliment even if the author’s goal is discredit our efforts.
(18) Readers Comments
Leave a Reply
![[UPDATE] The “Face” of Military Dating Scams – The Wall of Shame](http://militarygear.com/asp/wp-content/themes/LondonLive/thumb.php?src=http://militarygear.com/asp/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/2.jpg&w=53&h=41&zc=1&q=100)
555FAA71-9003-E525-37025352646A88C8
I am posting this in case someone by the name of susan just goes to th
Donna
I’m sick of politics too, CJ! Seems all they want to do is get in the White House at any cost!
Some people can’t stand our president and would do anything to bring him down, even at the cost of bringing our country down with him. The media can’t stand for anything positive to be said about him or his administration, so they twist their articles to sound negative.
Thank you for serving CJ and the many men and women who defend this great country and thanks for feeling the way you do about serving!
skye
The media will do anything to ignore the elephant in the room, CJ.
Democrats, liberals and the media are more interested in using the blood shed by Iraqi’s and US soldiers to their advantage politically. As we are now witnessing, once they have political advantage, their cares for said Iraqi’s and soldiers vanish.
Sick, but accurate.
Pingback: The Thunder Run
CriticalFacts
“While the fight in Iraq is still ongoing, their main base of operations – Afghanistan – is not longer a plausible locale. They’ve been forced into neighboring countries like Pakistan, Iran and Syria.”
Sounds like whack-a-mole to me.
Tracy
not sure how success is a problem, but I guess the left will try to put a negative spin on anything.
sealpatriot
Actually CF, plenty of countries with conflict and crime like some in the Middle East and Africa are having massive migrations to bordering countries. The biggest problem in the Middle East isn’t conflict or muslims not trying hard enough to get along, it’s the fact that Multi-National Forces support their efforts to stabalize their country, while the countries around them don’t. A good example would be how many of the countries around Iraq support and harbor those who engage in acts of terror. Tell me how on earth can we achieve stabalizing a country into freedom when they’re sitting in that kind of a melting pot? So we turn to taking the fight to other terror groups other than those ones that have caused damage to us, which is justified given that there are other groups out there willing to carry out the same agenda even if we were to defeat Al Qeada and cause them to disband. The GWOT involves Afghanistan and Iraq, it doesn’t end there though, not by the long shot. As far as the author of this article being a “Whack A Mole”, I don’t agree. We need more stories like this to balance out the way most news outlets report about the GWOT. All the while it is 100 percent true that what we see happening to our troops on the ground and the people they(we?) are trying to serve is awful to the fullest. There is no doubt that we precede to box terrorist cells all across the Middle East and that is enough evidence to refute those who claim there are more terrorist, depsite the fact that we went into the GWOT with our enemies having all time lows in their recruiting rates and the fact that today those same enemies are having even lower rates of successful recruiting up to 1/5th of the all time lowest. There is no other way to measure if your country is winning a fight other than how many enemies you defeat, and if that’s the case. We’ve won hand over fist!
nazar
“Two terrorist havens have been neutralized so far. While the fight in Iraq is still ongoing, their main base of operations – Afghanistan – is not longer a plausible locale. They’ve been forced into neighboring countries like Pakistan, Iran and Syria. Iraq is quickly becoming an unwelcome AQ vacation spot. ”
Before the liberation of Iraq, it was many things, but not a terrorist heaven. There is no evidence that Saddam and al-Qaida cooperated with each other.
“Second, our economy is the best it’s been in years. Unemployment is at all-time highs. The economy is booming. The dollar has made advances in many world markets. The Middle East is more stable with Saddam’s regime out of the picture. ”
You must mean unemployment is at all-time lows? I’ll agree that the economy is great, and Bush deserves a lot of credit for that. However, I don’t see how the middle east is more stable with saddam out. Saddam was a monster, but one thing he did well was to keep the mullahs in Iran in check. Let me ask you a question: after the liberation of Iraq, which country do you see take the most headlines? Iran, right? The unfortunate fact is that the Iraq War has removed only one of our enemies, and emboldened all the others.
CJ, I think you’re too cynical in your interpretation of Democrats. To claim that they would rather have America lose against the jihadists so they could win the White House seems absurd, to be frank with you. They think they’re doing what is right to make this country safer and better. You and I may disagree with their actions, but to smear their motives like that is very unfair.
Nazar
CJ
What’s so wrong with “whack-a-mole” as long as we’re killing the bad guys? I’m good with whack-a-mole.
Nazar, you are correct. It should have stated that unemployment is at all time LOWS. Thanks for the correction.
Seal, absolutely. Our success is scaring AQ to death. literally.
CriticalFacts
The problem with whack-a-mole is that we are not killing the bad guys. They just keep popping up elsewhere. And nazar is right on, when he states that Iraq was not a terrorist haven pre-invasion (at least in the minds of those who have not given to Karl Rove their ability to think clearly). But it is now – whack-a-mole!!
sealpatriot
Nazar, nowhere is a terrorist haven. Everyone is after you. Our country is no terrorist haven, yet the terrorist who attacked us were coming from within our borders. As far as Saddam not having supported Terror or those who engage it, well the fact that Zarqawi was there says otherwise. Same with the terror mastermind that we caught in Iraq that took part in the Hijacking of the Achille Lauro a while back(not fully sure when this was, 70′s or 80′s). Some people rebuttle this by saying the extremist weren’t born in Iraq. Well, they weren’t born in any modern middle eastern country because wahabihism was formed before the World Wars and before European Civil Officers drew any borders on the Middle East which was their acquired WW2 mandates. In fact, when it formed, the middle east was known as the Ottoman Turkish Empire, and they were one nation. the ideology which is the fuels of Wahabihism was formed for the Janiserries or Jazi Yeni Cheries of the Empire’s Imperial Court. It was their secret police force much like the Mukhabarat was for Hussein. They ruled with an Iron fist over several places including Iraq and their ideology was thought largely around the areas of the Shat Al Arab Waterways. In fact it was still present in Sadam’s regime, the mukhabarat would take kids and force them into Wahabi cults. They would also take people and make them commit suicide attacks. Those who did it voluntarily, got a modest Service fee and it didn’t last long in a country that was struglling economically. Zarqawi went to a wahabi cult in Iraq before starting Ansar Al Islam. The guys that did Bin Ladens bidding in 9-11-01 went to some of these places in Africa. Probably Sudan, since the genocide there is somewhat fueled by this Ideology as well. In the game Whack A Mole, you hit as many moles till you can’t anymore, Well, you don’t just stop with the 135 countries our troops and it’s allies operate in. Why not Whack one more mole?
sealpatriot
Just to clarify, when I say everyone is after you I was talking about the terrorist, just thought I should say that. I don’t want to call anyone a terrorist!
CJ
CF, you seem to be missing all the positive news about the death of Zarqawi, Abdullah Mohammed Rashid al-Roshoud, Shakir Hadi Jassim, Mohammed Khamis and MANY, MANY more terrorists. So, the whack a mole IS working and we ARE killing terrorists whether you want to believe it or not. That is not partisan or wishful thinking – it’s cold, hard fact!! Bring on the whack-a-mole hammer (ie AMERICAN TROOPS!!)
nazar
Sealpatriot, I was referring to the connections between al-qaida and Saddam that were drummed up by the Bush administration as one of the pretenses to going to war. The fact is that there was no cooperation between the two on anything.
It’s true that Zarqawi was operating out of Baghdad and up to no good, but all the authorative reports like the Senate PreWar Intelligence Report of 2006 indicate that there was no cooperation between him and Saddam on his activities. It’s like drug-lords who operate out of Miami having no connections to Bush (hopefully).
Pakistan and Iran were, and continue to be, far friendlier to terrorists than Iraq ever was. And let’s not forget the safe havens they have in Somalia, Sudan, and Syria.
I don’t know where you’re going with the wahabbi stuff, but I appreciate the info!
sealpatriot
Strange, there are also intelligence that shows Zarqawi was given a prosthetic leg at the expense of the Iraqi government, all with protection and even some pay. Besides, I am going to need some reference for the claim that we went to war with Saddam for links with Al Qeada. In the Joint Authorization Of Resolution for Military Action it says Iraq has Al Qeada operatives in it, and that was true, but it said nothing else about Al Qeada in it. Maybe there weren’t officers, but there were operatives there including the ones that escorted and helped Zarqawi. As far as the Wahabi stuff is concerned. It’s truly huge in the GWOT. It is possibly more important than catching Osama’s inner circle members. 17 out of the 19 (If this is incorrect, notify me) went to madrasas where wahabihism is practiced. Wahabihism is the belief that you serve Islam best when you kill your enemies and nothing else less. I know most Muslims aren’t like this. I even hear that a lot of them are nice. I don’t know. However, when it came to wahabihism, they brainwash you into believing in the terrorist philosophy. So innocence can turn to hatred pretty quickly.
CJ
Nazar,
Stand by. I’m reviewing the recently released 121 page report and you’ll be surprised what the media ISN’T telling you.
sealpatriot
In response to CJ’s statement
-Seal, absolutely. Our success is scaring AQ to death. literally.
Another peice of evidence that raises some eye brows is that in several attempts to flee the country from recurring loses, Zarqawi arranged to escape Iraq the same way he arranged for himself to get in there(Iraq). Through Al Qeada, in which there were letters sent between him and Al Qeada’s officers discussing how they are losing in their own bids to carry out their own agendas in Iraq.
sealpatriot
Also, as far as the claim that says Bush dumped the Geneva convention is concerned. There is not one president who didn’t violate it(G.C.) in our history. Well, in this case, the Congress because they micromanage the armed forces. When it came to things like U.S. Navy Seals, Marine Fast Team, and Canada’s JTF 2 to British Royal Marine Corps SBS who all specialize in Unconventional warfare, then going outside of the Geneva Convention is justified and is not uncommon. You just can’t fight an unconventional enemy conventionally, its a formula for failure. In fact, you talk about how being unconventional makes people hate us. Well, so does fighting conventionally. Whenever we go into helping a country teetering at the brink of conflict, that country could care less about us fighting lawfully or illegally and they just care about us getting the job done for their sake and their kids. I know Bin Laden has been a terrorist for sometime now, but during the early phases of the Russian occupation, the U.S. was aiding Afghani rebels with supplies and medicine, probably weapons and food too! Well, our peace talks with Gorbehcav(forgive me if I spelled this wrong) ended that supplying of necessitties and is probably one of the motivating factors of why Bin Laden hates us so much. We abandoned him without helping Afghanistan rebuild after the conflict which left Afghanistan in ruins, despotism, and poverty(you could probably see some of those ruins up to this day). Okay, all that damage for what? Just so we could end an unconventional war(The cold war was not conventional) and become pals with an enemy that wanted more nukes then us, probably to use it against us.
Pingback: ASP's 2007 Year In Review « A Soldier's Perspective