February 12, 2007

(Columbia & the World) – Before going any further, let me say that we're doing a lot better, militarily, in Iraq than you're going to hear. But having said that we also have to admit that we're losing the war, here at home. Just as in Vietnam, we are winning the war over there, but losing the war to the newspapers. It's our own fault. Those of us who have identified with the Reagan Revolution still don't get it when it comes to re-selling our successes back on the home front. It's as if our focus is selective. And this time, our real enemies are using our domestic sparring partners as puppets in their fight to spread terror and hate which is at the core of militant Islamist philosophy.

Those of you who have followed my columns for more than a few months will know that I have never been a big fan of a large military world presence, except to whack our enemies as we did in WWII. But even then, we didn't finish off the Soviets for their play in Berlin nor destroy Moscow so that we could come home. I believe in the merciless use of clean nuclear weapons (neutron bombs kill lots of people, not many buildings and leave no radiation), intense and merciless enforcement of immigration and terror-free imports, and no enforcement of emigration. It would also be nice if we could annex Mexico and central America down to Panama, but only we could do it peacefully. We already own Canada - even more than the English owned the Scots at the beginning of the 18th Century - but we shouldn't give in to the expensive temptation to govern them.

We should have a very large, standing army which practices ALL the time, but only leaves home VERY occasionally. We should have a viciously accurate spy system which cannot be corrupted and cannot be compromised by well-meaning political morons. We had one before and could have one again. We should have "good fences." Good fences make good neighbors - it's still true.

But we just love to whack things and then stay there. It may be the death of us.

So when it came time to - justifiably - whack Iraq, we decided to do it in a real and lasting way and then stay. Even then I thought it was a no-win situation. You don't mess with Arabs. You leave them alone to fester and fight each other. Jim Baker knew this. He said so. It's why George II (41) didn't stay in Iraq (although he should have made provision to protect the Kurds, which were eventually butchered by the tens of thousands when we withdrew our troops.)

But there WAS a way to punish Saddam Hussein without the loss of another 3000 Americans and allies, after the fall of the seven towers..

Back in 2001, Tom Clancy had a better idea - a multi-national "Delta Force." It would have let the French be devious and cowardly, the Germans be sincere and confused, the Russians be ambiguous and self-serving, the Chinese be non-participating but active, and the British be loyal and committed, while we just tried to cure the problem so we could all go to the mall. He wasn't advocating the use of the United Nations in anyway - the UN was and is a snake pit of envious, nasty people who exist because we keep them on political methadone.

But no Progressive or Republican listened. Now, George III is trying to fight a deadly plague with a hammer. The Progressives want to run away like King Arthur's troops in Monty Python & the Holy Grail. The Republicans want to fight somebody, but they really don't know how. We have exposed the wickedness of our allies as well as our enemies, but we also destroyed their socially desired cover of faked sincerity. We have left ourselves a target for every politician and other terrorists at home and throughout the world.

They say great republics only last 200 years. With our loss of moral vision, even as we make great strides in tolerance, with our inability to differentiate between helping the poor and helping the politically poor, with our politicization of science and medicine, and with our attention nailed to fame while crowding out reason, no one seems to question if our time is almost up.

- Dick Anderson