It’s been seven years now since the terrorist attacks on the United States and there is much talk about how much we Americans have “forgotten” what it was like on that day. You hear this mostly from traditional or conservative preachers, radio talk show hosts, country singers and some politicians and I have a tendency to disagree with them.
It is not that many of us have really forgotten what it was like, the fear and frustration, the pride and patriotism; and it’s not that we have become desensitized to the tragedy itself – it’s that we have become desensitized to the voices of the America-hating propagandists (those who at least wish for an end to American global dominance) whose messages are no longer as inappropriate as they were in the short time just after the attacks in September of 2001.
I unabashedly refer to these people and their messages as anti-American because of the dire and lethal consequences that make up the crux of their purpose and position.
America (and more generally the West as a whole) is fighting a war of survival against not only Islamo-Fascism but also against those forces which proudly align themselves with the supposed grievances of the Islamo-Fascists in a selfish attempt to undermine American power and increase their influence in an increasingly perilous world.
But by far the worst implications from these messages comes not directly from terrorists like Abu Massoud al-Zarqawi, Saddam Hussein or Mahmoud Ahmendenejad or even from the more subtle undermining forces like the U.N. and, most currently, Russia.
The greatest danger to the West’s noble cause in this War on Terror comes from the more intimate and internal yet ignorant voices of our own citizenry.
It is easy to determine that someone like Zarqawi does not have the best interests of most Americans in mind when he is jaggedly cutting off the head of Iraqi Contractor Paul Johnson and proclaiming that God hates all Americans and infidels. But it is the more endearing voices of our neighbors that significantly jeopardize our survival and attack our greatest vulnerability – potential collapse from within.
What’s more is that it does not matter if these initiatives are derived by our neighbors from ignorance or intent – they are nevertheless lethal and irreconcilable.
Below are examples of some of the more popular propaganda that we Americans face from our more “progressive” neighbors. First listed is the argument or captivating catch-phrase that is used to dissuade us from fighting – followed by a reasonable reaction to the argument.
There is no doubt that we are, today, in the midst of a world conflict. The victor in this conflict will win the right to impose his will on the world. Our will is one of light and liberty and love of fellow man – their will is one of tyranny, anarchy, chaos and control. Thus it is important to prepare to defend ourselves against these “soft” forces that wish to do us harm – what follows is a great, important piece of armor that can be used in this small but important battle in the greater world war that now rages.
1.) American’s unique and unmatched respect for private property induces in us a deep but reasonable sense that we can protect ourselves and our way of life by restricting our interest in other people’s affairs, by closing ourselves off behind borders. Reasonable supporters of this concept understand that just as there are benefits to remaining isolated there are equal or greater advantages to outward and active participation in issues that are of our self interest. Unreasonable patrons of the isolationist school of thought often question the U.S.’s role in the world as the “world police man” and insist that we have no other interest in that role except to violate our deep rooted sense of self-containment and, more importantly, the rights of other sovereign nations and people. These detractors fail to see the real reason behind and the real importance in the U.S.’s role as a world moderator of justice. In fact, there are many:
a. As the world super power we naturally have a stabilizing influence on things. This influence compels us to be the caretaker, the shepard to global situations that regard this stability. Call it a calling or a curse – it is ours.
b. A more selfish approach to the same idea is that if we wish to remain the world power, we must keep our influence in worldly situations regarding stability.
c. Our goodness and righteousness as a Christian nation with the means to be charitable also compels us to maintain an influence in global matters. It’s much like if you gave me money for something that you knew I needed and that I had promised you I needed and would use for that need – you’d have an interest – surely a right – to monitor or “police” what I did with that money.
d. No one else, not even and especially the U.N., seem to want to do it. Nor do many seem to do it as well or as well intentioned as we.
e. Keeping to ourselves (this might jump ahead and answer your question about the U.S. maybe immitating Switzerland in its neutrality and isolationism) is dangerous and ineffective. There are numerous examples in our history where the United States attempted to be an isolationist state and greater pain and price were caused for having not been involved in the first place. If you look at the past seven major military conflicts, it would have behooved the U.S. to have gotten involved sooner rather than later and would have saved many lives and much money had we done so. (This is one reason why I support a continued presence in the Middle East – so as to avoid greater casualty later.) Now this all being said – I am not one of those people who buy into the mantra that “Well, on September 10th 2001, we were not bothering anyone.” Those people need to do a little more research into our enemies’ worldviews, because in fact, many of bin Laden’s calls for war have included mention of Western forces’ mere presence in Arabia (though he does not mention the fact that these forces were invited by host nations nor does this holistic argument include the fact that this should nonetheless justify the intention killing of innocent civilians nor the reward from the West for such actions).
f. The world is becoming more and more globalized and whether we like it or not we will be forced to be involved. President Bush said it best when he said that on September 11th 2001, America learned that oceans can no longer protect us. This is sad, but true. Very, very true.
g. But most importantly the “world policeman” phrase was designed and is used often as P.R. to gain support for an isolationist perspective. This is a perspective with which I do not necessarily disagree. I think that most Americans and certainly many Americans that I have personal respect for would prefer it if America would “stick around more at home”. But as I have said, it is unfortunately not the way our cookies have crumbled – and, believe me, we want it to crumble our way!
2.) By far the most used criticism against the U.S. and its few Western allies in the current state of world war is that the strong and the rich (the U.S. and president Bush) are trying to acquire (steal) other weaker countries’ (any country in the Middle East) and poorer people’s (any person who is Middle eastern) resources (oil); the belief is that this war is “all about oil” (it’s funny how this argument has been used in the last four major military conflicts that this nation has participated in – but it’s always “this war”). It is true that oil is an important factor in this conflict and will continue to be important on the world stage and in world conflicts so long as the human race is fossil fuel dependent. But it is also true that all wars are generally fought over resources – making this conflict in no way unique among the countless conflicts in human (or even animal) history. The idea that the current world conflict is strictly about stealing other weaker countries’ oil or that rich “oil men” in the West are using these wars to fill their pockets is ludicrous and absurd – and it’s a lie. This conflict and the issue of oil is far more complex than that. President Bush has clearly said that the Iraqi people will keep their oil. The oil fields were so well protected early in this Iraqi campaign because of that very reason (and the fact that the terrorists knew that if they could blow up the oil fields in southern Iraq, they could sabotage any re-building effort, create another environmental catastrophe and convince the world that this fight was, indeed, about oil – all at the same time!)
Iraq, unfortunately, has not flowed as quickly as our government had promised us it would – a set-back to be sure.
Even so, that oil would never reach the U.S. in the first place. Europe maybe, but only, maybe. Europe certainly has oil investment in the Middle East and that might be a good reason to assume why they may want war in Iraq
but I doubt it. I believe that Iraq will keep most of its crude, it is just not cost effective enough right now for the U.S. to use Iraqi oil and we get most of our oil crude from other places than the Middle East.
Oil, to be sure, is a national security issue and an issue that all Americans should pay very close attention to but the truth is that the Iraqi conflict is far more complex than just about oil.
3.) If the war is not about oil, many people in the opposition to this nation’s defense claim, then why have U.S. troops been in Iraq for the past five years and why does the U.S. continue to have a long standing presence in the Middle East at all? Why not in say, the Ivory Coast, where there is little or no oil? Much of this answer can be found in the answers concerning our nation’s inclination or disinclination towards isolationism (see above). To be sure this is a double edged sword and a coin that the U.S. leadership has flipped many times with regards to foreign policy. Again, it has everything to do with national interest and most of the time national interest has to do with resources. And the fact of the matter is that this nation (and the West as a whole) has a much greater interest in the crude coming from Mesopotamia than in the spices that might be found on the west coast of Africa. But both facts also remain that President Bush has shown great insight to have committed the U.S. to fighting this conflict and he has done it with very little or no historical example to follow. However, that is not to say that he has not sometimes conveyed the message of and behind this conflict to the people of this country poorly. The problem, honestly, is that there are so many reasons, very complex reasons, why we should be in Iraq that the message becomes difficult to construct. The fight in Iraq is important in three ways other than just oil and resources.
a. The first is that Saddam was a sworn enemy of the U.S. who ardently sought to damage or destroy the U.S. in anyway possible for many years. Now, I am not one of those that believe that we should have “finished him off” in the Gulf War – in fact we dealt peacefully with him in the early 1980’s when our bigger foe was the USSR and communism. And I really thought that he could have been contained during the Gulf War. Unfortunately, the U.N., and in some ways the previous administration did a poor job of doing that. Saddam blatantly violated sixteen U.N. resolutions, seven of which specifically threatened military force for non-compliance. This invariably brings up the topic of WMDs. And unfortunately for the Bush administration only few have been found. But therein also lies a failure of communication. In the biggest way, it was thought that using the WMDs reason behind the need for war in Iraq was a “slam dunk.” The advisors and intelligence personnel were so sure that they would find these weapons that they left out much of the rest of the message and reason why the war is so important. We know that Saddam had them; he used them in 1988 and at other times and would have used them against us if he could have gotten away with it. And at least five of those U.N. resolutions state that he must destroy the material and he must do so in the presence and under the witness of a U.N. representative. So he hid them, sold them, or destroyed them without a witness, and that’s it. There are no other options. And each option is in direct violation of U.N. charter ending in the consequence of military force – which the U.N. refused to uphold. Saddam was a very smart man. He understood Western politics better than most people living in the West. He knew how to cheat and beat our system. Granted, his first priority was to protect and save his own skin, but destroying us and Israel (I’ll get to this in a minute) was a very close second. This violation of U.N. mandate without consequence is a dangerous precedent in a world with prevalent nuclear power and countries living absent of the rule of law and thriving on extremist hatred (and with terrorists flying passenger jet liners into office buildings). After 9/11 we just could not let our enemies go unchecked as they were and we could not place our security in a U.N. body that couldn’t care less. The message had to be sent that if you disregard agreements and penalties put in place by an international body (or any body worth its weight) there will be an exponential and accelerating price. I know this leaves out much mention of a connection to our specific security (if you don’t consider the thought of every building in, say, Atlanta, melting to the ground tomorrow from a nuclear attack concerning our security) so I divert to the second component in why the conflict in Iraq is so important.
b. Saddam did have terrorist ties and was more than willing to use them and his access to WMDs to hurt the U.S. or Israel. He strongly favored what’s called “false flag” operations against the U.S. and Israel. Below are a few examples of how:
i. Saddam fervently supported Palestinian suicide bombers by offering their families $25,000 for every bomber. He reportedly upped that amount to $50,000 after 9/11.
ii. In 2002 Saddam granted Usama bin Laden the national award for man of the year in Iraq. This award holds far more political incentive than say, Time’s “person of the year”.
iii. Saddam harbored such terrorists as Abu Nidal (the leader of the infamous Achille Laura attack in 1986), Carlos the Jackal, and Abu Massoud Al-Zarqawi.
iv. After the invasion U.S. troops discovered one of the largest known terrorist training camps in the world in a town called Salman Pak, just south of Baghdad. In this camp, officials found a fully equipped Boeing 707 designed for training aircraft hijacking techniques like those used on 9/11.
v. In 1999 Saddam’s Unit 999, a high level special operations/terrorism unit in the Iraqi military was ordered to “collaborate closely with” Usama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda network in Iraq.
vi. Saddam tried to have President George H. W. Bush killed in a terrorist attack in 1993. Many opponents site the current conflict in Iraq as a means by which President George W. Bush can seek revenge for almost killing his father in this attempted attack. What those same critics forget is that George H. W. Bush is not just George W. Bush’s father but also our nation’s former president and an attack on a former president is considered an act of war.
vii. The crux of dozens of bin Laden’s religious appeals for Holy War against the U.S. have been centered around the issue of his support for Iraq and Saddam specifically. This is the case despite the differences in the religious beliefs of the two outlaws.
viii. Ramzi Yousef, the al-Qaeda mastermind of the 1993 attacks on the World Trade Center was also a high-ranking Iraqi Security official who was trained and sent on missions by Unit 999. Yousef is probably the most damning element against Saddam for his connection to terrorism against the U.S. He sits in a prison cell in Florence, Colorado protected from much further questioning by U.S. district attorneys.
c. Another reason for the conflict in Iraq and certainly the greater War on Terror that is often either totally ignored or incredibly over-emphasized by opposing sides is found in the over all greater conflict of interests between the East and the West. The greater War on Terror (Iraq included) is actually a derivative of the great Arab-Israeli war that began in 1923 with the formation and later deformation of Transjordan. While it is important to keep religion out of this conflict because of the resistance to change that theocratic ideas create (one reason why the Arab/Muslim side of this is so resistant to change, I believe, is because of this) and the last thing we, in the West, need to do is add more resistance to this situation, I feel that it is an important aspect to explore. There are two facts that influence this religion argument.
i. Any time you enter religion into a conversation you begin to limit your options because most people are not too willing to alter their religious beliefs on argument alone – so it’s a wasted effort. Secondly, if you add religion to this World War, you really do remove much room for negotiation.
ii. I think that the West’s inclination towards a separation of church and state is what defines much of this conflict (in words and bullets). If many of these more modern Arabian states (Iraq now included) would adopt some version of that concept their people would not feel so obliged to follow the calls of their leaders (who are almost always non-secular) to jihad. The nice thing about the West, is that if you disagree with government policy you are not automatically doomed to hell because our leadership is secular in nature. But let’s face it; many in the Arabian world could use a good escape route to start disagreeing with their governments.
d. Religion being now dismissed (see above) it is also important to note that an additional reason for the war in Iraq and the greater Middle East and the greater War on Terror over-all is the fact that the largest “grievance” – by far – bar none – that our enemy has against us is our ally Israel. And our enemies do not just hate it that Israel is doing so well (heck, they have turned the desert into a flourishing garden in many places!) and that they, while sitting on caverns and caverns of oil, are doing so poorly – they just plainly hate Israel. And they hate and wish to destroy us for supporting her in word and in deed. And what further enrages our enemies is the fact that Israel is doing so well because our system (the U.S. and Israel and their rule of law and separation of church and state, democracy and capitalism) works and theirs (minus everything ours is) does not (one reason why hearts and minds are, now, so important … if we can change their systems we can get them to do their own policing – see above). So, Judaism, Zionism, Biblical command, aside – they hate us; not because of Brittany Spears or Coca Cola, or MTV, or even, in general, our freedom; they don’t hate us because we have done them some wrong (people forgive wrongs all the time, we did the Japanese and amazingly they did us) or because they are poor (look at all the people in Burma, probably the poorest nation in the world, or even closer to home Haiti, those people aren’t so willing to die to kill civilians – on purpose!); they hate us because we support Israel – and every claim of destruction and death that comes from the lips of Saddam, bin Laden, or any other teeth baring extremist on the streets of Cairo or Mosul, footnotes their screams with their wishes to remove the Jew from the Middle East – if the earth in its entirety. And the U.S. is the biggest obstacle in their way to doing that. Our enemies know that they can influence our politics. They have done it before. That is why it is so important that first, we, influence theirs.
4.) There is yet another, but rarely mentioned, reason for the perpetuation of this war. I say “perpetuation” here because often, on my commute to work, I see this purposefully cute bumper sticker that illustrates out in fabulous, fashionable, font, “Stop This Endless War!” and I can’t help but to ask myself in rhetorical retort … Isn’t all war endless? Indeed, this war does seem endless. And it does so in part because this is a war of world dominance and whose ideals it will be guiding any new world dominance or new world order (no reference to the standard “New World Order” often mentioned, touted, and drooled over by conspiracy theorists, anarchists and others who refuse to read and cite credible sources). The fact is that this war is as perpetual as any war has ever been. This war is a derivative of nearly every war fought before it – making it, without a doubt, a global war of humanity.
When the Roman Empire shattered and gave rise to the various Germanic tribes and families and then kingdoms which spread throughout Europe and constantly fought over control of one another and other seemingly far-off kingdoms (see Spain and Britain) the seed was planted for revolution in Europe that would lend to exploration to other worlds. And when the new world was discovered little could be done for long that would keep the colonies tethered. Revolution turned to wars of independence, wars of independence turned to yet more war – this time with other nation states and against opposing ideologies like Nazism and Fascism and Communism like in Germany, Japan, Korea and Vietnam.
This war is no different as illustrated in the slowly-forming global coalitions that we read about every day in the newspaper.
It was easy and innocent to assume that pax-Americana (American Dominance) would go unchallenged in the post-Cold War world.
But we were wrong.
And many people, terrorists groups, political factions and legitimate nations are lining up to do just that.
This war is about whether or not Western philosophy, rule of law, justice, respect for life and liberty and way of life will prevail. Whether it be Russia, the U.N., Iran, France, China, www.moveon.org, Michael Moore, Bill Maher, Tariq Aziz, Usama bin Laden, or even the next President of the United States, any challenge to these western ideals must be taken seriously.
America’s current path is right and good and true.
And any divergence from that path must be examined thoroughly or we may, some day, be regretfully asking our selves why we did not fight this war rather than what the reasons for it were – because by then – they will be all too real.
