The big­gest elec­tion win­ners were our en­e­mies

The Washington Times Weekly - - Commentary - Cal Thomas

The big­gest win­ners in the Nov. 7 elec­tion were the en­e­mies of the United States, who see the re­sults as con­fir­ma­tion of one of their doc­trines: The United States is weak and does not have the com­mit­ment to fight a pro­tracted war.

There is no talk of a new strat­egy on their side. They don’t hold elec­tions to re­place their lead­er­ship with peo­ple who will ne­go­ti­ate and com­pro­mise with the United States, or the elected Iraqi gov­ern­ment. Their me­dia do not carry voices call­ing for a new approach to the war.

Amer­ica’s en­e­mies are gloat­ing more than Democrats. But un­like Democrats, their in­ten­tions are evil. If the ter­ror­ists are to be be­lieved (and who can cred­i­bly doubt them?), the U.S. elec­tion will en­cour­age them to fight on and kill more of our sol­diers.

Here is some of their post­elec­tion anal­y­sis: The leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Hamza al-Muha­jir, posted a record­ing on the In­ter­net on which he claimed to have 12,000 armed fight­ers and 10,000 oth­ers wait­ing to be equipped to bat­tle Amer­i­can troops in Iraq. He said he wants Amer­i­cans to stay in Iraq so more can be killed. “I swear by God we shall not rest from ji­had un­til we [. . .] blow up the filth­i­est house known as the White House,” the voice on the record­ing said. Those “fab­u­lous Baker boys” will soon de­liver the Iraq Study Group’s re­port to the pres­i­dent. Ex­pect what­ever it rec­om­mends to be im­ple­mented. Th­ese mostly for­mer as­so­ciates of for­mer Pres­i­dent Ge­orge H.W. Bush have long be­lieved Is­rael is the pri­mary cause of desta­bi­liza­tion in the re­gion. This is, and al­ways has been, a false doc­trine, but it is en­tic­ing for those who do not want to dis­turb the flow of oil and other mone­tary ben­e­fits to peo­ple who ei­ther want to hide their anti-Semitism and/or reap large prof­its from Arab oil mag­nates.

If this were a novel, it would be chill­ing enough, but this is re­al­ity. The Is­lam­o­fas­cists re­ally do want to de­feat Amer­ica in Iraq and then use a failed state to repli­cate Septem­ber 11, 2001, (and worse) around the world. They say so, and their ac­tions prove their in­tent.

Europe is in a per­ma­nent state of de­nial. The Euro­pean me­dia are cluck­ing about the elec­tion re­sults. They be­lieve if Amer­ica pre­ma­turely with­draws from Iraq, Euro­peans will be safer. In fact, Europe will be — and, in re­al­ity, al­ready is — in its great­est dan­ger since World War II.

An­other re­minder of the in­creas­ing threat to Europe comes from the head of Bri­tish intelligence. The di­rec­tor gen­eral of MI5, El­iza Man­ning­ham-Buller, said as many as 30 ma­jor ter­ror­ist plots are be­ing planned in the coun­try and that fu­ture threats could in­volve chem­i­cal and nu­clear tech­nol­ogy. She said young Mus­lims are be­ing groomed to be­come sui­cide bombers and that MI5 agents are track­ing 1,600 sus­pects, most of them born in Bri­tain and linked to al Qaeda in Pak­istan. Prime Min­is­ter Tony Blair, who once called for ex­pelling sedi­tion­ist rad­i­cals and clos­ing some mosques, has been re­buffed by the Bri­tish courts, which con­tinue to treat ter­ror­ism as a crime prob­lem in­stead of a war. Rad­i­cal Mus­lims have flooded Europe, but Euro­peans pre­tend they will not be harmed if they imag­ine the en­emy poses no threat.

Both a nov­el­ist and a re­al­ist could write the fol­low­ing sce­nario: In an ef­fort to take Iraq off the ta­ble as an is­sue in the 2008 pres­i­den­tial cam­paign, the Bush ad­min­is­tra­tion adopts most of the pro­vi­sions of the Iraq Study Group. In a mod­ern ver­sion of the Paris Peace Talks, which al­lowed the United States to have “peace with honor” and with­draw from Viet­nam (re­sult­ing in the deaths, im­pris­on­ment and “re-ed­u­ca­tion” of un­known num­bers of Viet­namese who wanted to be free), the ad­min- is­tra­tion then or­ders a “re­de­ploy­ment” of forces af­ter “ne­go­ti­a­tions” with Syria and Iran (rec­om­mended by Mr. Blair). This al­lows just enough time for Amer­i­can troops to leave be­fore al Qaeda mur­ders the elected lead­er­ship and takes over Iraq.

Mean­while in the United States, mosques and Is­lamic schools paid for by the ex­trem­ist Wah­habi sect, mul­ti­ply like fast-food fran­chises. Ter­ror­ists are im­ported and re­cruited from pris­ons. Al Qaeda an­nounces weapons of mass de­struc­tion have been placed in key Amer­i­can and Euro­pean cities. They de­mand the United States stop pro­tect­ing Is­rael. If we refuse, they threaten to det­o­nate their weapons, killing mil­lions of peo­ple. What pres­i­dent, or prime min­is­ter, will re­ject that de­mand? Af­ter ca­pit­u­lat­ing on the in­stall­ment plan, who will have the po­lit­i­cal or moral cap­i­tal (or mil­i­tary ca­pac­ity) to stop Ar­maged­don?

Cal Thomas is a na­tion­ally syn­di­cated colum­nist.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.