Know your enemy

Cliff May:

It would be nice – or at least more convenient – if America could fight just one enemy at a time. But that’s seldom how it works.

World War II was called a world war for a reason: President Roosevelt might have preferred to take on only Imperial Japan, the nation that had attacked us. Instead, he had to lead the country into battle also against Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. He had to fight not only in the Pacific but in North Africa and Europe as well.

It’s astonishing how many otherwise smart people seem incapable of grasping this reality. Many have been making the peculiar argument that we shouldn’t worry too much about al-Qaeda in Iraq – because it’s somehow different from al-Qaeda Not in Iraq. Consider the question a reporter asked of President Bush at a recent press conference:

But, sir …what evidence can you present to the American people that the people who attacked the United States on September the 11th are, in fact, the same people who are responsible for the bombings taking place in Iraq? What evidence can you present? And also, are you saying, sir, that al Qaeda in Iraq is the same organization being run by Osama bin Laden, himself?

Can you imagine, President Roosevelt being asked:

But, sir … what evidence can you present to the American people that the people who attacked the United States on December 7th are, in fact, the same people who are responsible for the so-called “blitz” bombings now taking place in London? What evidence can you present? And also, are you saying, sir, that those attacking London belong to the same organization as do those Japanese who are allegedly responsible for the attack on Pearl Harbor?

Reporters and other interested parties might spend a few minutes reviewing the latest National Intelligence Estimate. It states unequivocally that al-Qaeda in Iraq is al-Qaeda’s “most visible and capable affiliate and the only one known to have expressed a desire to attack the Homeland" here in the U.S. In plain language: The consensus view of the U.S. intelligence community is that the most dangerous branch of the terrorist organization that attacked American on 9/11/01 is al-Qaeda in Iraq.

...

Most Americans would be surprised to learn that our first major offensive operation in World War II was to attack the French in North Africa. People who talk about Iraq being a "debacle" would be shocked at the mistakes made in that campaign. Even with the deficit of military history in this country, most people know that the French had not attacked us in World War II nor had they declared war against us. However, the Germans had declared war against us and they effectively controlled the French colonies through their defeat of the French forces in Europe. It was determined that the best way to get to the German forces in North Africa was through the French territory.

Which brings us to the whining about Iraq and whether we should be fighting al Qaeda there. If you put aside all the other valid reasons for the war in Iraq, the fact that al Qaeda has chosen to fight us there is reason enough to continue the battle. It is actually a better place to fight them than in the tribal area of Pakistan and we have developed Iraqi allies to help us in that fight. The reasons for retreat make no sense if we want to win the war against a wicked enemy that wants to destroy us. They only make sense if you seek political gain in this country from our defeat. They only make sense if you want a weaker America who will be on the defensive in the war against us.

Those who suggest that we can end the war by that retreat are either delusional are lying. The enemy will still be fighting us and he will have more resources to fight us with if we retreat, and he will get to choose the next battle space which very likely will be in this country.