Winds of War: Perhaps the Democrats Should Take Power

From The Gathering Storm

Before you run to comment section of this blog and fire off a message saying I’m a sandwich short of a full picnic, please read on first. Chalk this post up to frustration.

I believe that democrats should regain power for two reasons.

1. The Republicans are fighting this war ineffectively
2. The Democrats don’t want to fight it at all.

Let’s take number one first.

Many of you who frequent the starboard side of the bloggosphere as it tracks the growing Islamic threat, know that the current Administration can not or will not identify the correct enemy and dances around the issue when they get close. If you can’t identify the enemy you can’t fight it properly. You can’t defeat it. You can’t win the war.

The enemy is an ideology that is advanced both by violent (terrorism) and non-violent (political, economic, demographic – Intimidation, Infiltration, Disinformation) means. Neither the politicians nor the military understand the full extent of this multi-part strategy or how to oppose it if it did. Here’s an example of the misunderstanding even if it is from the opposition’s side of the argument.

The administration wages a one-front war against al-Qaeda, the main terror threat, when effort on every relevant front is needed. Specifically, it has focused on an offensive military and intelligence campaign abroad while neglecting five other critical fronts: bolstering homeland security, securing weapons and materials of mass destruction from possible theft or purchase by terrorists, winning the war of ideas across the world, ending conflicts that fuel support for al-Qaeda, and saving the failed states where al-Qaeda and like groups can find haven. The administration has also bungled parts of the military offensive by diverting itself into a counterproductive sideshow in Iraq and by alienating potential allies. As a result, al-Qaeda and related jihadi groups remain a potent threat more than five years after the 9/11 attacks. Assessments by U.S. intelligence and other analysts actually indicate that the terror threat has increased since 9/11.

I won’t go on. There’s ample proof that the Bush Administration is not fighting this global war against the Islamist ideology.

On to number 2. The Democrats and the liberal hoard.

Nancy Pelosi, perhaps the next Speaker of the House and second in line for the Presidency, summed up the entire Democrat’s view of the conflict we are in.

In a stunning performance on "60 Minutes," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi proved again why she cannot be trusted to keep America safe from the threat of global terrorism and Islamic extremists. Mrs. Pelosi demonstrated that she does not understand the global nature of the threat when she stated flatly "the war on terror is the war in Afghanistan."

What staggers the mind is that all she need do is listen to those who we are at war with this ideology.

She may think the war is limited to Afghanistan, but where does al Qaeda believe the war is? Al Qaeda's No. 2 man, Ayman al-Zawahiri, in a letter to the leaders of al Qaeda in Iraq, was clear about the location of the global jihad and the importance of victory in Iraq: "Victory of Islam will never take place until a Muslim state is established in the manner of the Prophet in the heart of the Islamic world ... As for the battles that are going on in the far flung regions of the Islamic world, such as Chechnya, Afghanistan, Kashmir, and Bosnia, they are just the groundwork and the vanguard for the major battles which have begun in the heart of the Islamic world." Islamic fascists led by al Qaeda are fighting a global jihad to establish a Muslim caliphate from Egypt to Iraq. They will attack anyone, anywhere, with any means, that will further their violent cause. Tourists in Indonesia, embassy workers in Africa, commuters in Spain and London, schoolchildren in Russia, office workers in New York and Washington, and 40 Americans on a plane over Pennsylvania could all tell Nancy Pelosi where the war on terror is, if their voices had not been silenced…… Al Qaeda knows that they are in a war with many fronts.

And if she read more of the world news she would discover that the plan to advance the recreation of the Islamic Empire is well on its way. From the Telegraph in Calcutta, India.

It is unfashionable to invoke the domino effect. But if Iraq goes under, Afghanistan is certain to be next in line. If that happens, India will be the next target of a resurgent jihad. We can gloat over the present Anglo-American discomfiture at our own peril.

And this from the Sydney Morning Herald.

Gobal jihadists have picked Somalia as a potential new safe haven for al-Qaeda, sparking concern among security agencies already overstretched in fighting terrorism around the world.

Finally there’s this lament from the Los Angeles Times.

It might be better if international terrorists were treated as international criminals, but the overall metaphor of crime is not up to the job. A word that keeps popping up is "struggle." In substance, that's about right. This is a long-term struggle against multiple threats to free and open societies. But the word "struggle" has its own baggage. It really won't do in German; not since "Mein Kampf" anyway. In English — English English, that is — it has a faint echo of people handing out copies of Socialist Worker on street corners. No, I can't see President John McCain or Hillary Clinton taking up "the struggle." So I'm struggling to find a better term. Ideas, anyone?

How about this. It’s the ideology, stupid, and it should be confronted whenever and wherever its supporters raise their ugly heads. As I said in a previous post, “What we will accept is the right to free speech and disagreement – but not sedition.”

Read the rest of why I think the Democrats should regain power.