ISIS Versus the World?

Obama continues to gradually raise America's investment in protecting the tottering Maliki government in Iraq.  A total of 800 US troops, mostly Special Forces, have gone to help retrain the Iraqi Army to face this new threat.  According to Russia Today, widely seen as a Kremlin mouthpiece, Russia delivered five combat planes to Iraq to help in that nation's defense.

This comes as ISIS announced the formation of a caliphate.  In Islamic tradition, a caliph is a religious leader with somewhat less spiritual authority than a Roman Catholic Pope.  The closest Western approximation might be the Anglican title for the British monarch "Defender of the Faith."  Holy Roman Emperors also had similar combinations of temporal and spiritual authority.

According to Time, even Sunnis (whom the caliphate supposedly represents) have fears about the radicalism of the new movement.  Unease about new rules for worship and civil interactions could dampen enthusiasm for ISIS outside of areas it controls.

Control of Baghdad is key.  As the inheritor of civilized traditions reaching back 5,000 years, it would give legitimacy to the aspirations of ISIS terrorists.  This has spurred action from both the United States and Russia on the side of Iraq.

Russia has specific worries.  Around 20 million of its 142 million people worship in the Muslim faith.  Most of these live in the southern regions of the country.  The effect of a rising radical Muslim state must worry Moscow.  Similarly, Red China's Xingjiang Province has a high concentration of Muslims who have rebelled against Beijing.

Shi'ite Muslims have religious reasons to oppose the ISIS caliph.  Traditionally, they believe that it is blasphemous to name a caliph outside of the lineage of Mohammed.  Iran and much of Iraq worships in the Shi'ite tradition.  They likely would strongly resist rule by a Sunni caliph they found not only invalid, but a blasphemy against their faith.

The backing of Russia and the United States should boost the morale of the Iraqi government, so long as ISIS momentum can be dented.  Allegedly, ISIS plans to seize Africa north of the equator, Iran, India, and the rest of the Middle East and Central Asia.  Its designs include the conquest of three NATO states and parts of Russia, as well as Europe up to the borders of Germany and Poland.

Currently they control northeastern Syria and most of Iraq north of Baghdad outside of Kurdish territories.

Significant ISIS gains would likely bring together a number of states usually not on friendly terms.  Already, Iran has approached the United States to discuss a coordinated response, although working with the mullahs has its own danger.  Should Baghdad fall, likely many states would set aside differences in an international effort similar to the Boxer Rebellion expedition in 1898.

Iraq's Modern Day Mahdi: Bald Faced Terror On the Move In the Middle East

As the American media drones on about the primary defeat of a Virginia congressman, the lights may be going out around the Middle East.

A wound that started erupting in Syria has now brought infection to neighboring Iraq. The Islamic State of the Levant and Iraq (ISIS) has expanded its reach into many of Iraq's western provinces and the second city of Mosul.  Its forces now have started moving towards the central government in Baghdad.

Some see this as a historical correction.  From the Roman Empire through the Ottoman period to the League of Nations mandates, boundaries in the Middle East reflected the priorities of other states.  Turkey and Israel alone relate to ethnic and historical boundaries.

ISIS militants, however, have imposed the most severe forms of Islamic law with the most violent measures. Hundreds have been brutally killed, including many beheadings.  Hundreds of thousands have fled rule by terror.

At stake is the government of Iraq.  The Iraq War left the nation in a fragile infancy as a democracy.  Millions defied terrorists to dip their fingers in purple ink and vote.  American forces remained available as part of a status of forces agreement that would allow the US military to help defend the democratic government when necessary.

Unfortunately, Obama has neglected the victory that American troops (agree or disagree) fought to achieve. He failed to reach a status of forces agreement with Iraq and painted it as his own success.

Well over a century ago, British controlled Egypt governed the Sudan.  Egypt employed General Charles George Gordon to help defend their position in Sudan.

Britain had offended Sudanese Muslims, not with imperialistic greed, but their demand that the slave trade end.  A charismatic leader, Muhammad Ahmad, emerged to give a religious cloak to discontent over the end of the slave trade, among other things.

Ahmad took on the name "Mahdi" which is something like a messiah.  The Mahdi does not restore earthly or heavenly kingdoms, but sweeps through the land killing anything in his path.

The Mahdi annihilated those who would not join.  He slaughtered almost all of the city of Khartoum, not just General Gordon and his Egyptian soldiers.  Eventually he died at the hands of a British force under Lord Kitchener, sent too late to save Gordon and Egyptian allied troops.

The Mahdi of the 1880s and ISIS of today do not bring historical corrections.  They bring only death and suffering.  They do not debate the morality of saving other nations from dictators.  They torture and destroy.

What has happened while Obama plays golf games and promotes Democratic candidates to high school students is the worst case scenario.  A terrifying warlord has gained influence and momentum and could upset the entire political structure of the Middle East.  We can turn on all the coal mines and oil and gas taps possible and do very comfortably without the resources of that part of the world.  But millions could die and an entire region could lapse into anarchy, a dangerous proposition in the nuclear age.

One could not imagine a worse scenario in which to have a presidential disaster.

Mission Accomplished: Thank You President Bush

An article this week in the very liberal Newsweek magazine described something that very same magazine once deemed either impossible, or too costly to succeed. It claims that the war in Iraq has been won by the forces of democracy.

Our military played a larger role than any other to make this happen and our servicemen deserve the most credit. However one must also understand that democracy does not happen without the resilience of the people of Iraq. Their desire for freedom and their demands that political violence cease were heard loud and clear. They did not just talk. They volunteered for the police and the army, braving bombs and snipers. They voted and proudly waved their purple fingers at cameras. Now they have run through their second cycle of elections. One party is peacefully about to give way to another.

Why did democracy work? President Bush deserves a lot of credit. He could have micromanaged Iraq, as Kennedy did South Vietnam. Domestic political pressures were placed on him every time they made a move that we disliked or misunderstood. Bush encouraged Iraq to find its own path without American controls. They did just fine.

Now young Iraqi women wear miniskirts and listen to rock and roll. Iraqis are free to speak and worship freely. Their neighboring countries do not fear stockpiled WMDs and their people are not terrified of random kidnapping and torture by the government. Rule of law and republican government prevail. And the Iraqi people love it.

Mission finally accomplished.

No News Is Good News From Bush's "Failed Iraq War"

Remember two years ago, the mantra of "Bush's Failed Iraq War?" A mantra technically is a phrase that is repeated over and over because it has religious significance. It is something taken very much on faith. Journalists, academics, comedians, and others repeated it so often that conservatives even started to agree. President Bush withstood a lot of pressure to stay the course.

Look at 2009. Terrorist groups do not even bother to issue major threats anymore. The people voted and less violence took place than in some countries with decades more experience at voting. One shooting occurred in a nation of over 20 million people.

What happened to the civil war? What happened to government collapse?

US troops patrolled not in Humvees or armored troops carriers, but lightly on foot. They stayed mostly in the background as Iraqi police took center stage. Even as the US and Iraq discuss withdrawals, violence has not risen to dangerous levels.

President George W. Bush gets the credit for this one. When he left office, Iraq was more stable and more peaceful than Mexico. It also has a stronger chance at this moment in history for long term success. Democrats succeeded in making the Iraq War the defining issue of his presidency. Now they have to deal with the fact that it ended up an overwhelming success, a factor that will cement Bush's historical legacy as a positive and constructive force in US and world affairs.

If Iraq does fall from its current state into chaos, this falls at the feet of an Obama presidency that is sending mixed signals in the Middle East.

*****************************************************************************

By the way, we need to be worried about global cooling. Ever since Obama took office, we have seen devastating storms and colder than normal temperatures.

Obama causes bad winters. The correlation is there. What more proof do we need?

Of course this is ridiculous, but it is the same logic that underpins global warming assertions.

War? What War?

Funny how news of the war has dropped to an almost imperceptible amount lately.

Perhaps it is because violence has dropped considerably over the past several months and US casualties occur relatively rarely these days. Iraqi forces have assumed responsibility for most of the country and absorb most of the casualties. The liberal screeching about civil war has turned into a rush to discuss anything else.

US money and resources have gone into building a strong public school system for Iraqi children. Yes our schools need money too, but many of these children are attending a secular school for the first time. They will learn about their important national traditions as well as the importance of democracy and respect for others. Investing in their education means that less children need to go to the fundamentalist Islamic school-terror brainwashing centers that would otherwise be their only alternative.

Just yesterday, American forces targeted and killed Al Qua'ida's number two leader in Iraq. The terrorists have lost there because America embraced a strategy of patient, but firm commitment. US troops tried to avoid violating sacred places while maintaining pressure. The commitment of George W. Bush to victory over political expediency ensured that the sacrifices of the US and Iraqis would not end up in vain. Democracy strengthened in the past year to the point that Iraq asked us to figure out when we could leave. Such self-confidence was lacking for a long time.

Victory in Iraq should be a crowning achievement for the Bush administration, but it will take years until he receives credit. Should his economic interventions stabilize the economy and reestablish growth, Bush may go down in history as one of our great presidents.

Meanwhile both Democrats and Republicans fear any kind of war related discussion. Republicans need to stand up and show pride that they supported democracy over tyranny, even when the situation looked grim. Their political courage helped to create an Iraq on the verge of success.

The US Senate Almost Unanimously Agrees: Bush Strategy in Iraq Is Working

Maybe the media was the last to get the memorandum on this.

MoveOn.Org infamously called him "General Betrayus" in a massive New York Times advertisement. This sparked discussion and outrage because General David Petraeus had not even gotten his feet wet in Iraq. It will likely inspire scores of GOP commercials directed against any candidate unfortunate enough to have taken this anti-American organization's donations.

The United States Senate, in a sense, almost unanimously endorsed the current direction in Iraq last week with their confirmation of this general as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Many applauded his ability to de-escalate the violence and bring political stability. Deaths among American servicemen and Iraqis have fallen as a result. Iraq now feels confident enough to ask the United States for some indication about when US servicemen will start to be pulled out. If anyone needs any indication that Iraq is not Vietnam, the host country requesting a timetable for pullout represents a strong example of this truth.

Senator Robert Byrd voted against this confirmation, but not for reasons you might anticipate. He argued that a successful commander ought to be left where he is. Continuity in command makes more sense than promotion at this point, according to the Senator. We did not promote Dwight D. Eisenhower out of his active role after D-Day. President Lincoln did not desire to remove Ulysses S. Grant from the battlefield because he found success where other Union generals had not. Senator Byrd does have a valid point.

However, let us not lose sight of the meaning of this vote. Senate Democrats demonstrated confidence in the Bush Administration and his commanders whether they wanted to reward success with a promotion, or keep a good general where he enjoyed success. We have come a long way in a short time in this war. We must thank first and foremost the servicemen who have sacrificed to do the job right, next their commanders for working to fashion a plan for victory, and finally President Bush whose political courage helped better the lives of millions of Iraqis who were initially freed from tyranny and will now face more freedom from terror.

The Brilliance of President George W. Bush

It's not fashionable to say it, even amongst the conservatives who voted for him. The truth is inescapable, though. When it comes to foreign policy and bolstering American credibility in the world, President Bush and his administration have performed brilliantly.

After eight years of mollycoddling by Bill Clinton, President Bush's unabashedly aggressive policies worked like a bucket of ice water on a soundly sleeping child. Europe especially had to wake up and recognize the new sheriff in town. President Bush after 9/11 then named the three most wanted malefactors against world peace. His "Axis of Evil" address offended the sensibilities of liberals and professional diplomats in the same manner as President Reagan's "Evil Empire" analogy. In the long run, this kind of labeling when applied to rogue regimes is difficult to shake.

President Bush in Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrated American resolve. Bill Clinton issued threats just as when the National Weather Service issues a thunderstorm threat. It may or may not come. President Bush along the same line issued warnings; in other words the storm is coming.

The world got used to an America ready to defend the interests of real peace and it responded. Anti-American governments fell in nations such as Germany and France despite the fact that the world press labeled the people as literally hating the United States. Perhaps they understand better than academics and the press who the real threat is. Meanwhile some states such as Libya abandoned their previous policies of seeking WMDs and supporting terror. Palestinian terror has dropped significantly since its major benefactor Saddam Hussein was expelled from power. Vietnam sought a partnership with the US against Islamic terror.

Dominoes continue to fall. Europe backed out of any support of Iran as its frightened president turned up the rhetorical heat. North Korea negotiated its way out of the Axis of Evil by succumbing to regional pressure led by the US. Now Iran stands virtually alone, even Chavez has not been his usual boisterous self lately. All this has happened quietly without a lot of saber rattling by the US. Once we proved that we would act, the rest of the world friend or foe knows they can count on American resolve.

Had Congress listened to the president's wishes domestically, our position would be even stronger. Imagine if we had followed President Bush's wishes from his first months in office when he warned us about upcoming energy shortages. We could be almost self-sufficient if we would only tap our own sources. His only flaw has been his inability to sell his policies in the same manner as Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, or Ronald Reagan. This reflects a businesslike mentality in the White House, but the result has been an electorate easily convinced by emotional appeals from his opponents.

At the end of the day, the Bush foreign policy has worked miraculous change. Europe stands with an aggressive United States. Even moderate anti-war activists have to accept the fact that the United States has almost succeeded in Iraq. Iran stands alone without support from any of its previous benefactors. Japan, Britain, and Australia stand with us as firmly as ever.

Hats off to President George W. Bush, a president who was not afraid to act and who has given the world real solutions rather than band aids.

Why Obama's Pastor Matters

I believe that I belong to a generation of Americans ("Generation X") who have moved beyond the race issue that has consumed this nation from its inception to the present. I, and those I associate with, embrace and live the ideals of racial equality; indeed, I personally have never known any other way. I grew up in a mixed-race neighborhood in New Jersey before moving to West Virginia 15 years ago.

The embrace of the Obama campaign by a large and deep cross-section of Americans indicates that there are many, especially among the young, who feel--as I do--that race is a non-issue in the selection of a President.

That is why Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama's spiritual mentor and adviser, matters.

Wright, to get to the point, is a racist. For kickers, he's also a loon, believing as he does that the U.S. government invented the AIDS virus. And as West Virginia Democrats and independents consider their primary election options, consider whether you would vote for someone who joined, as an adult, Fred Phelps' "World Church of the Creator", and made annual contributions that exceed West Virginia's average annual income. Phelps' great contributions to society include protesting Iraq war funerals, in addition to his protest at the Sago Mine memorial a couple of years ago, as a messenger of "God's wrath" against the decadence of America.

And that's the problem with Obama and Wright. Obama put his money where Wright's mouth was. And, in the great scheme of things, Wright is no different that Phelps. Would you vote for a member of Phelps' church for President? Or would you consider it a sufficient lapse in judgment as to lose your vote? To ask the question is to answer it.

The American GI: Our secret weapon

I had the opportunity to speak with an Iraq/Afghanistan veteran. The young man stopped by my store to pick up some parts. He explained he had been a mail order customer of mine in Germany when he was stationed there.

I immediately thanked him for his service to his county. I think we all should thank any person who is serving or has served his country every time we meet one for it is they that give us our freedom.

He spoke about how his grandmother wished all our troops could leave now from Iraq. He told me he explained to her that if we did it would all fall apart, and all the sacrifice that had been made would have been for nothing. He also stated that he explained to his grandmother that we have been in Germany for 62 years since the war ended. This young man who had been on the front lines sees the big picture that the Harry Reids of the world can not see.

His thoughts turned to locals he has interacted with. He talked about children that had nothing hanging around outside the camps and fire bases of Iraq and Afghanistan. Many without shoes or proper clothes. The GI's would give them candy, food and discarded items.

It brought to my mind the GI's through history. Whether it be the GI's in the UK during World War II giving the kids candy, because they had none due to sugar rationing or the film of the young Japanese kid shivering with fear on Okinawa as a US Marine gave him his canteen to comfort him. The candy bombers of the Berlin Airlift. Through Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, etc. the American GI's just being themselves win the hearts and minds of the next generation.

America's true secret weapon is the GI. Not because they are the best fighting force in the world (and they are by far), but because they represent America. Whether from the city or the country they are fair minded and are willing to lend a hand to those in need. GI's have a big American heart. Many of those kids that were given candy will remember when they are older and somebody says America is bad that is not true, because they have met true American's.

Bush As Phoenix???

History will judge George W. Bush otherwise, but right now in the summer of 2007 his presidency has grown politically problematic. Except for Texas and some parts of West Virginia and Western Maryland among a few other spots, President Bush's popularity fell through the floor over the last few years. Democrats have grown to count on anti-Bush animosity while many Republicans regard potential mentions of him with anxiety.

Although it is certain that George W. Bush cannot be re-elected, Democrats will make him one of the major issues of the 2008 campaign. They will assault the Republican nominee for president with Bush, wanting to force either a potentially unpopular defense or an equally embarassing disavowal. Congressional Republicans will see the most heat on the issue. Voters will see, hear, and read a steady diet of the Democratic mantra of Bush and Iraq. Unless . . .

From the Democratic political perspective, a potential nightmare scenario has commenced. Some liberal critics of the war have started praising signs of progress since President Bush launched the troop surge. The Kurdish north appeared on 60 Minutes as an island of freedom and prosperity. Add to this the substantial improvement shown in illegal alien numbers since the Bush administration started a crackdown and voila, instant rises in approval ratings. Signs also are evident of voters growing fatigued of hearing constant Bush bashing.

The nightmare scenario of the Democratic Party is this. The September report on Iraqi progress may show little improvement in political developments over July. However Iraqis understand what an American presidential election year means, especially if a Democrat wins. A sense of urgency should result in real advances. Meanwhile the Democratic Congress has accomplished little. Add this to progress in illegal alien control and continued economic strength and the Democrats suddenly appear weak.

A strong and electable Republican presidential nominee coupled with a Bush revival will overwhelm the Democratic party. Bush rising from the ashes in popular opinion is the last thing they will expect, but given the good news on important fronts makes this eminently possible.

Shelley Moore Capito Gives as Good as She Gets

The latest political stunt orchestrated by the Democratic Congress came in the form of a bill that would have caused hardships and complications for our military. Few people understand the difficulties faced by the military as they struggle to deploy troops in different theatres around the world from a 100% voluntary force. Congressional Democrats proposed legislation that, if it passes the Senate, will make the process almost impossible by mandating much longer periods of leave for soldiers serving in Iraq.

Everyone would like to see soldiers able to spend more time at home, but this places severe constraints on the military's ability to operate. As the daughter of a man who served his country with distinction in World War II, Ms. Capito understands the strains that combat places on individual soldiers. She also understands that our commanders need flexibility in making deployment decisions. Some have accused the Democrats of trying to force a withdraw from Iraq by making the conduct of the war much more difficult. In any event Democrats know that President Bush will veto the bill. This is more of a statement than a well thought out bill. It is a ploy to create an issue to use against responsible Republican congressmen and women in 2008.

Shelley Moore Capito represents a district that has a higher than average rate of men and women in the service and knew the Democrats would target her if she voted against it. Six Republicans broke ranks to side with the Democrats and others merely signified "present." She had the courage to vote against the bill, preserving the flexibility of the military. Will this vote appear in a commercial next year? You can bet on it. Did Capito's vote represent political courage? Absolutely.

Once again Shelley Moore Capito shows strength, backbone, and responsibility.

Memorial Day Tidings to the Troops From Rockefeller and the Left in Congress

If you criticize someone when they deserve it, you also ought to take time and praise someone. Although I disagree with Senator Robert Byrd's spoken position on the Iraq theatre of the War on Terror, it must be pointed out that his most recent vote, with the majority against cutting off funds for the war on a certain date, was for the troops. Left wing congressional Democrats have tried to undercut our troops by delaying or even halting funding for them while they still serve in the field. Byrd's vote does not indicate a change of mind so much as it demonstrates that he does not want our troops left without the tools they need to fight. Hopefully it also means that he does not support cutting out in such a humiliating fashion.

Right now left wing congressional Democrats have no concern for America's fighting men and women. They have no concern for those that have supported us and believed in us in Iraq who will suffer greatly if we leave prematurely (or come to the US in large numbers looking for assylum.) They have no concern for America's leadership position in the world, which recent European elections have shown is at a very high level right now. Count Senator Rockefeller among these people.

Except for a handful this stand does not reflect principle, but politics. They see certain opinion polls and change their stripes to reflect what they consider to be the popular mood. Many published polls show a minority supporting the war. Less publicized polls also show that most Americans do not support leaving prematurely. Rockefeller has probably not seen them. He voted for the war, but then claimed he did not understand the information presented to him as ranking Senate member on the Intelligence Committee.

Rockefeller knows that he is vulnerable, but he does not understand that this vote may have killed him should a strong and well-funded opponent appear. With so many West Virginians in the Iraq theatre needing the essentials to fight and do the job we sent them to do, Senator Rockefeller voted to cut off their funds. This will send a loud and clear message that the West Virginia GOP should make sure every West Virginian hears by next fall.

Unfortunately the message from this vote, taken so close to the day when we are supposed to honor our fighting men, sends a message to our enemies as well. It tells them to hang in there just a little longer. Unless moderate, patriotic Democrats and Republicans stand firm, the left wingers can win the war for the terrorists.

Thank you

As Memorial Day approaches, I wanted to take the opportunity to thank those who we need to remember this time of year.

First and foremost I thank those heroes currently in harm's way. I thank the soldiers and their support in Iraq and Afghanistan. I also thank every US serviceman. As we have seen for many years, the enemy seeks to make barracks, nightclubs, apartment buildings, and other facilities their front lines. We show appreciation for these gallant men and women at Arlington and other military cemetaries, but we also need to continue to thank these people by supporting their work to extend freedom for others and security for us.

We also ought to show appreciation for those that work in the shadows whose tales rarely get told. Agents of the CIA, FBI, and other agencies have worked long hours and put their lives on the line. We don't know their stories and we should not hear them until it is safe to tell them. Only now do we get to hear the courageous exploits of those that advanced the cause of freedom in wars long past. For now we'll remember at least some of them every time another anonymous star appears at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.

Memorial Day of course remembers all those men and women living and dead who have sacrificed for their country. Take some time to talk to the few remaining World War II veterans. I wish I still had my grandfathers so I could ask them more about their service in the Pacific and Italy. Remember the Korean veterans because their war somehow has been lost in the historical memory. Thank a Vietnam veteran because our country owes them not only for their service, but also how they were treated for many years after they came home. Remember those that fought in Iraq in 1991 and other smaller conflicts whose names have slipped into history, but inspired feats of courage and duty all the same. Places such as Panama, Grenada, the Dominican Republic, Lebanon, and other areas are not just points on a map but areas made sacred by American blood spilt there in the cause of freedom.

Memorial Day is not just another day off. Especially in a time of war when enemies still conspire against our nation and our soldiers remained engaged, we must take the time to honor all those that have defended our freedom now and in years past.

Live Free or Die?

“Live free or die,” the state motto of New Hampshire, challenges the mind and offers a stark choice. Either exist as free men and woman, enjoying all of the rights God and Creation grant to every human being, or die fighting for them. Of course this does not describe the full range of choices, which include accepting tyranny. If ever given that choice, what would America do in 2007? What would you do as an individual?

Never has America seen a time when people agreed on this ideal. Patrick Henry defied Britain in 1775 by proclaiming “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” Others chose to follow the British, some out of conviction, but to others it seemed the most secure choice. Those that argue that Iraq was better off under Saddam Hussein cite the relative peace over the land that was purchased at the cost of liberty. They conveniently forget the people massacred and tortured by that “orderly” regime. Right now the people of Iraq at least have a choice to make and many of them stand by the ideal of “live free or die.”

Will we ever have these choices to make? Certainly we hope not. The ancient Athenians and citizens of the Roman Republic probably believed that their governments would always respect their natural liberties, but as we know they eventually faced subjugation. Tyranny does not always come at once. Josef Stalin used the phrase salami tactics to describe how he would deprive people or countries of their sovereignty. You do not take all of it at once, but slice off a little bit here and there over time. Eventually you get what you want and people are more easily reconciled to it. That is how freedom disappears in the face of concerted effort.

Whether it is property rights in Mineral County or gun rights across the land, you can bet that over time, attempts will be made to slice away at them bit by bit. Standing up now to protect those rights even when it is a minor incursion, means that we will continue to only have one of the choices listed above and that is to live free.