Defining victory in Iraq
Henry Lamb
Monday, December 12, 2005

Victory in Iraq can be declared when there is an elected representative
government in place that controls Iraqi security forces of sufficient
strength and experience to prevent Islamic fundamentalists from gaining
control of the nation by force of arms.

This victory is essential to the defense of the United States. If there is
ever to be relief from the suicide bombers and treachery of the Islamic
terrorists, it must come from inside the Muslim world. Iraq offers the best
hope of establishing an alternative to the Islamic extremism that has been
expanding throughout the world in recent decades.

Make no mistake about it, the goal of the Islamic extremists is to hijack
Islam, and convert the entire Arab world into their vision of how society
should be organized. Afghanistan under the rule of the Taliban provides a
good example of what their ideal world would be like.

The war against terrorism is not simply a search for Osama bin Laden, and Al
Zarquari. It is a war against the ideology advanced by these people: that
all who live outside their narrow vision of how life should be lived, are
infidels worthy of slaughter by any and all means.

If the Iraqis can create an elected, representative government that can
demonstrate the benefits of freedom, the example will have profound
influence throughout all of Islam. When Muslims see the results of free
speech, free expression, free elections, and economic opportunities that
arise from a free market economy, this message will be far more compelling
than obedience to any dictator.

This victory cannot be achieved by bringing U.S. troops home now, as the
leadership of the Democrat party demands. In fact, withdrawal of U.S.
support before victory is achieved is worse than surrender to the Islamic
extremists. It would also condemn the Iraqi people who have risked their
lives to achieve freedom, to retribution from the extremists, and decades
more of tyranny. Iraq would become the new Afghanistan, a haven for
terrorists to train and export their fanaticism throughout the world.

Nancy Pelosi says that the majority of Congressional Democrats support John
Murtha's call for immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Howard Dean, Chairman of
the Democratic National Committee, says victory cannot be achieved. The
public voice of the Democrat base, led by the likes of Ramsey Clark, says
that President Bush should be on trial instead of Saddam Hussein.

Democrats appear to be fanning the flame of discontent over Iraq, in hopes
of gaining ground in the mid-term elections, regardless of the impact their
political pronouncements may have on the troops, or on the outcome of the
war. Constant criticism of the war by the Democrat leadership, amplified by
the media, gives encouragement to the terrorists who know full well that the
only way they can win, is for America to withdraw.

The war on terrorism should not be a partisan issue. Both Democrats and
Republicans - as well as those who fit neither description - should realize
that the war on terrorism is finally an effort by the United States to stop,
and reverse, the spread of Islamic fanaticism. All Americans should realize
that these Islamic fanatics will use any destructive device, anywhere, to
inflict terror as a means of intimidating people to cower before their rule.

They have inflicted enormous suffering inside the United States, and have
tried unsuccessfully to stage more attacks. They have attacked innocent
civilians in other nations as well. Those who try to separate the London
attacks from the bombings in Spain and Indonesia, from the attack on the
World Trade Center, from the constant attacks on Israel and from the war in
Iraq - are focusing on the trees, and fail to see the forest. All these
attacks arise from the same ideology - regardless of who wears the bomb or
plants the explosive devise.

America should present a united front against this ideology in Iraq, and in
every corner of the world where it raises its ugly head. If we allow the
vocal Democrats to cloud the issue and delude the country into believing
that victory is not possible, as Howard Dean says, or that the war in Iraq
is "U.S. aggression" as Ramsey Clark says, or that the troops should be
withdrawn immediately, as John Murtha says, then the terrorists will win.

The President's first responsibility - whether Democrat or Republican - is
to defend this nation from all enemies. In the name of Islamic fanaticism,
Osama bin Laden declared war on the United States, and orchestrated an
attack on this country. The U.S. response is correctly against the ideology
of Islamic fanaticism - terrorism - whether perpetrated by Osama bin Laden,
Al Zarquari, Hussein, or anyone else, in any country.

Victory in Iraq is not only possible, it is essential, if there is to be any
hope of winning the war against terrorism.

(Henry Lamb is the executive vice president of the Environmental
Conservation Organization (ECO), and chairman of Sovereignty International)



http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/lamb121205.htm

NOYB wrote:
Defining victory in Iraq

What's to define? Bush has declared victory in Iraq no less than three
times since we've been there!!!!!