February finds North America and her allies at an important point in the ongoing War on Terror. Despite the best efforts of NATO and other allied forces in Afghanistan, the Taliban are resurgent in parts of the country and top al-Qaeda officials remain at-large. Iraq is experiencing conditions which can now be accurately described as a civil war. Iran is continuing to develop its nuclear energy infrastructure, much of which has the capability of supporting the production of weapons-grade material. We are now faced with critical choices which will have a lasting impact on our security environment.
The attacks of 2001-09-11 originated in Afghanistan, so it must therefore remain the central front of the War on Terror. It must remain so until the Taliban are crushed with extreme prejudice and top al-Qaeda officials are either captured to face justice or neutralized. The War in Iraq has distracted the United States from defeating a proven threat, which has made the United States less secure and given al-Qaeda more time to plan additional strikes on our Nation and interests. President George W. Bush (R-US) stated that he preferred not to wait for our Nation to be attacked by WMDs supplied by Iraq's military stockpiles. The operation's main target, Saddam Hussein, was executed over a month ago, yet very few WMDs have been located and terrorist activity remains high in Iraq. The threats which the United States and her allies cited in attacking Iraq have instead been amplified, reducing our national security.
The still gaping hole in New York City's skyline and the sheer number of names listed at the temporary memorial on the site are testaments to a demonstrated threat to our Nation. Yet almost 6 y later, those responsible have not faced the justice they so richly deserve. Our Nation's justifiable anger must therefore be focused on destroying elements which have
actually defiled our soil through their barbaric actions. Any future augmentations to our military engagements abroad must first enhance our objectives in Afghanistan so that we may achieve a decisive victory in that theater. In addition, we must use all appropriate elements of our national power to pursue top al-Qaeda elements in Pakistan if accurate intelligence supports these actions.
Iraq's developing civil war meanwhile poses a significant threat to the security of the region. The question of whether it was prudent to go into Iraq is relevant only for accountability purposes. The Election of 2006 sent a strong message and the Election of 2008 likely will amplify that message. What is prudent now is achieving a sustainable victory in Iraq so that we may redeploy our forces to other theaters and/or needed rest. For many, the term "civil war" conjures up images of Blues and Grays fighting what was, for the most part, a classical form of warfare. It is understandable that they don't think ground conditions in Iraq meet the definition of civil war. However, civil wars are conducted differently in the various nations they are fought. The combatants will use whichever methods they deem are most appropriate to meet their operational objectives. In the case of Iraq, our enemies have chosen to use terrorist tactics against civilian and, to a lesser extent, military targets. Many of these groups are getting reinforcements from Syria and Iran. Any plan for victory must include aggressively filtering the borders to stop the flow of terrorists and materiel and talks with both nations. We must understand Syria and Iran's interests in Iraq and make it abundantly clear to both that they are best served by having a stable neighbor in the region. For example, an Iraq which is a responsible member of the international community will not attack Israel, which could certainly include Syrian targets during its next retaliatory operation. In addition, an Iraq which is content and prosperous is unlikely to launch a strike on Iran.
Iran's continuing nuclear ambitions continue to be a source of
escalating tension between the Islamic republic and the United States. Against a backdrop of increased U. S. forces levels in the Persian Gulf and technological pronouncements by Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadi-Nejad, a number of independent news outlets have raised the spectre of a new military offensive against Iran. GlobalSecurity.org has posted a
countdown which, while "necessarily speculative," indicates the beginning of hostilities will occur within days. It is well-known that the success of any operation against Iranian nuclear infrastructure will require a level of secrecy so that the enemy's assets cannot be reconfigured into a more survivable posture. All of the requisite denials of plans to attack Iran have been made by top U. S. officials, so this secrecy remains intact.
While military action must remain an option in our strategy to deny Iran nuclear weapons, it is not yet time to exercise it. There is a belief in some circles that one should not talk with what we see as "illegitimate regimes" and that doing so constitutes weakness. This is extremely dangerous in practice and does not serve our interests. While Iran's government is clearly unworthy of a nation with such a rich cultural history and its people,
it is the acting government and its policies do carry the force of law within the nation. Therefore, we must develop an understanding of their motivations and interests so that we may negotiate with them effectively. In the case that diplomacy fails, we may then use this information to plan a targeted and lethal military offensive which will have maximum effectiveness. Furthermore, aggressive, honest diplomatic activity will continue to provide an atmosphere which is conducive to military action and would give us the moral justification to act if our differences cannot be resolved peacefully.
Interestingly, the United States' greatest allies in the fight against Iran's fundamentalist regime are its youth and young adults. They have long since become weary of their nation's repressive policies and general isolation from the international community. Even more than us, they would like to see a responsible government in Tehran. In time, the ayatollahs and their "elected" puppets will exit the scene and will be replaced by those who are more representative of the Iranian people. We cannot risk alienating this incipient ally through a premature attack. Young Iranians are not naive; they recognize that their current government's possession of a nuclear weapon is unacceptable to the United States and its allies and that these countries will exercise all elements of their power to defend this objective. However, they expect us to achieve our objectives as efficiently as possible so, when conditions permit, they can reform Iran on
their terms. This will inspire a greater sense of national pride and a corresponding desire to aggressively defend their efforts.
The War on Terror has indeed gone critical. It is imperative that we remain fully engaged with the region we are attempting to reshape so we may act with the moral authority and full confidence which we need to be effective. The troops who have so nobly volunteered to defend our freedoms desire and deserve a sound strategic context so they can carry out their missions as safely as possible. It is high time our leaders delivered this to them.
