June 19, 2013
June 12, 2013
Stephanie Hanes: Little girls or little women? The Disney princess effect
Fred Weir: In tweak to US, Russia would 'consider' asylum for Snowden
June 10, 2013
The Kosher Gourmet by Anjali Prasertong: A tart filling so good it might not make it to the crust
June 5, 2013
John Rosemond: Mom, Dad: Talk More and listen less
Egypt court sentences 43 pro-democracy workers to prison
June 3, 2013
Molly Hennessy-Fiske: Military judge to consider letting Fort Hood shooting defendant represent himself
May 29, 2013
Andrew Connelly and Helene Bienvenu: The Little Synagogue that Refused to Die
May 24, 2013
Rabbi Tzvi Hersh Weinreb: When I didn't so 'humbly disagree'
May 22, 2013
They launched the 'Arab Spring' but now yearn for the good old days of a strongman
May 20, 2013
Richard A. Serrano: Is Meir Kahane's assassin now a changed man?
Genetic copies of living people from embryos no longer science fiction
Jewz in the Newz by Nate Bloom :
The Kosher Gourmet by Cathy Pollak:
Jews Inducted into Rock Hall of Fame; Anton Yelchin co-stars in New "Trek" film; Kutcher (but not Kunis) visits Israel; Jewish TV Star Praises Jewish Rap Star
WARNING: This WALNUT CAKE WITH PRALINE FROSTING, perfect for afternoon coffee, is addicting
Jewish World Review
Sept. 11, 2007
/ 29 Elul, 5767
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.
In recent days, the people of the United States have received two messages from afar both involving the front known euphemistically as the "War in Iraq." The two messages offer Americans starkly different visions of our future and should be considered with care.
One is the report by Army Gen. David Petraeus, our senior commander in Iraq. At this writing, its thrust is known from a letter sent to his troops by their commanding officer. The text of his report has not yet been made public.
The second is the videotape released last week by Osama bin Laden, leader of the Islamofascist terrorist group, al Qaeda. It features the Saudi in his usual pose, reading from a script in a meandering, yet menacing fashion.
The central thrust of the general's report can be described this way: It is a message of resolve, determination and courage in the face of adversity. It recognizes all is not satisfactory, let alone well, in his theater of operations. Yet, the Petraeus assessment makes clear there is progress in providing the security in Iraq that is a prerequisite for the sort of political evolution that will ultimately determine whether the Iraqis can enjoy a future of peace and prosperity, or are condemned to continued conflict and/or renewed despotism.
The central thrust of the bin Laden tape is, by contrast, a message of defeatism: America's defeat in Iraq is inevitable. The sooner it cuts its losses, the better for all involved. He cites a litany of other ills facing this country, including the impact of the collapse of the subprime lending market on the U.S. economy, as further reason to have no faith in our leaders.
Unfortunately, some of those leaders have launched pre-emptive attacks against the message conveyed by Gen. Petraeus. They have engineered a series of reports from others, including the Government Accountability Office and an independent commission led by retired Marine Corps Gen. James Jones, in the hope of bracketing our commander's relatively positive report with more evidence of bad news.
Some have gone so far as trying, figuratively, to "shoot the messenger." Gen. Petraeus' integrity and loyalty have been besmirched. Sen. Chuck Schumer, New York Democrat, actually called his submission the "Bush-Petraeus" report. The obvious intent: Discredit the objectivity and, therefore, the political significance of a distinguished military officer's analysis by implying he is really not its author, just a shill for a hated president and his administration.
In fact, the second message might more accurately be called the Democrat-bin Laden perspective. After all, the criticism served up by the terrorist leader was clearly drawn by his propagandists at least in part from the sorts of talking points used by American opponents of the conflict in Iraq.
To be sure, Democrats in Congress may not have appreciated bin Laden's criticism leveled at them for not doing more to end the U.S. role in Iraq. But at least they should recognize that critique as it is coming, first and foremost, from their radical base. For that matter, it is frequently echoed even by some of their own officeholders, frustrated by the party's inability to command the necessary cloture-imposing and veto-proof majorities on Capitol Hill.
The question now is: Which of these two messages will most influence the American people? Will it be the argument that the United States cannot safely relinquish Iraq to its enemies in this War for the Free World affording them a safe-haven and a base of operations of vastly greater strategic significance than Afghanistan under the Taliban ever was? These considerations lay at the heart of the decision (lest we forget, supported overwhelmingly and on a bipartisan basis) to liberate Iraq in the first place, thus denying terrorists a sanctuary with vast oil resources, a strategic location and a technology base and industrial capacity affording access to weapons of mass destruction.
Or must we surrender Iraq to such enemies? Of course, the latter choice will be dressed up as a "strategic redeployment," clearing the way for what is promised to be a more determined and successful effort to go after al Qaeda elsewhere, notably in Afghanistan and perhaps in Pakistan.
Whatever Democrats (and a few Republicans) may call it, however, the second choice is the one favored by Osama bin Laden. It would be, as he has called it, a defeat for the United States Far from being the end of the fight with Islamofascists like him and his enablers, such a choice would simply embolden them and result in an accelerated, global metastasizing of the struggle against their ilk.
My bet is the American people are not prepared to surrender in Iraq. As they hear a formidable military commander explain the counter-insurgency strategy he developed and is now implementing with considerable, and growing, effect, they will agree with his recommendation: The surge is making a difference and the effort and expenses required for it to make a sustained contribution to our security are justified.
Certainly, the issue could not be more starkly framed. Fight this enemy wherever we find them and they happen to be concentrated in Iraq and fighting furiously to secure it for their cause? Or give bin Laden what he wants in Mesopotamia and hope that he doesn't mean the rest of his screed about forcing our national conversion to Islam or destroying us? It's time to choose.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
JWR contributor Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. heads the Center for Security Policy. Comments by clicking here.
BUY FRANK'S LATEST
"War Footing: 10 Steps America Must Take to Prevail in the War for the Free World"
America has been at war for years, but until now, it has not been clear with whom or precisely for what. And we have not been using the full resources we need to win.
With the publication of War Footing, lead-authored by Frank Gaffney, it not only becomes clear who the enemy is and how high the stakes are, but also exactly how we can prevail.
War Footing shows that we are engaged in nothing less than a War for the Free World. This is a fight to the death with Islamofascists, Muslim extremists driven by a totalitarian political ideology that, like Nazism or Communism before it, is determined to destroy freedom and the people who love it. Sales help fund JWR.
© 2006, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.
Richard Z. Chesnoff
Frank J. Gaffney
Victor Davis Hanson
A. Barton Hinkle
Judge A. Napolitano
Cokie & Steve Roberts
Debra J. Saunders
J. D. Crowe
David Ray Skinner
Ask Doctor K