End Terrorist-Sponsoring States
Nearly five years have past since the 9/11 massacre, and the recent plot uncovered in London shows that Islamic terrorism is alive and well. That’s because the solution to Islamic terrorism—ending all dictatorial regimes that sponsor terrorism—has yet to be implemented.
The dictatorships of Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria are still free to sponsor terrorism, while the appeasement-worshipping West is busy chastising Israel for retaliating against Hezbollah—a murderous, Iranian-backed terrorist organization.
President Bush, shortly after 9/11, effectively promised to go after all states that sponsor terrorism. Instead, he shamefully switched focus to “bringing democracy†to Iraq, a tragic mistake that undermined support for the war on terrorism and allowed the evil regimes to not only continue promoting Islamic fascism and sponsoring terrorism worldwide, but also to sponsor mass murder in Iraq.
President Bush et al must refocus on ending the dictatorships sponsoring terrorism—and quickly because Iran is building a nuclear bomb while its mullahs chant “Death to America!â€
Glenn Woiceshyn is President of Powerful Minds Inc., a Calgary based firm that develops curriculum materials for K-12 education. http://www.powerfulminds.org mailto:mail@powerfulminds.org | More from Glenn Woiceshyn
Stumble It!
August 12th, 2006 at 1:49 am
Well Glenn, I don’t know that bringing democracy to Iraq was shameful, as much as it was futile (so far) with the exception of the Kurds, who appear to be the only folks in Iraq who actually got the idea.
That aside, what would you have Bush do? Should he send troops into Teheran? Bomb Syria? Quit selling Cadillacs to Saudi Arabia?
Bush, specifically, and the US, in general,is endlessly criticized, internationally, for doing too much, then for not doing enough, and now, for not doing anything at all (where the three countries you mentioned are concerned).
Though I agree that something needs to be done, it would be nice if some other country would take up the torch for once. I’ll grant you it’s a pipe dream, but it would be nice just the same.
August 12th, 2006 at 11:40 am
Well Zoro,
I’m not a military expert, but shortly after 9/11 Bush should have declared war on all states that sponsor terrorism and militarily ended the regimes that financed terrorism via petro-dollars–Iran, Saudi Arabia and Iraq–and take over the oil fields until they could be handed over to private companies operating under individual rights protection, which means a constitutional republic. At minimum this would have required bombing Iran, which was classified as the premier sponsor at the time, into unconditional surrender. This would have ended the notion that the U.S. was a paper tiger. Saddam and his regime would have had to be destroyed and Saudi Arabia would have surrendered without a fight. The primary operating principle of the U.S. would be to destroy terrorists and their sponsors. Re-governing the region would be up to the people in the region and other freedom-loving countries under the proviso that any government must respect individual rights, including property rights, and must have complete separation of religion and state.
The idea would be to create the motivation for good people living in the region to do the work of eliminating the evil people.
The situation today is much worse than 5 years ago. War with Iran is inevitable now; it’s just a matter of time. And the longer we wait the worse things will get–especially when they devlop the nuclear bomb. One good thing now is that more Westerners have become aware of Iran’s evil actions and designs. A strategic military strike against Iran now, with Israel’s help if possible, destroying Iran’s military capability and demanding unconditional surrender, would be the best solution. Syria would fall quickly and it wouldn’t take much to make Saudi Arabia stop financing militant Islamism, even if it requires taking over the oil fields.
As for sending troops into Iran, I would say yes if it serves to protect American lives in the long run–which ought to be the primary focus of U.S. foreign policy. But unlike in Iraq, the U.S. military should not have its hands when it comes to killing local enemies.
To not take out Iran now will only cause greater bloodshed in the future. Imagine if Hitler was attacked and destroyed, around 1936-37, before he acquired major military might!
August 14th, 2006 at 4:11 am
Glenn, I don’t necessarily disagree with what you just wrote, but insofar as even in Iraq and Afghanistan, where inspite of thousands of well-equipped coalition troops the West has not yet been able to get the Muslim horse to drink out of the trough of freedom, how do you expect us to win in Iran?
My point is this. Iran, since 1978, is the source of pretty much all the murderous mischief in the world, either directly or indirectly. That is what we agree on, I think. However, it won’t be by invading and occupying Iran that there will be an end to the trouble. Indeed, you state that you are not a military expert, because if you were, you would realize that Iran would be one of the bloodiest wars the US has fought since the 19th century, when we lost a half million dead in the Civil War.
The Iranians can take casualties. They lost an estimated 600 thousand dead in the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980’s. Iran has tremendously difficult terrain. The Iranians are fiercely patriotic and have shown themselves to be 1st class warriors throughout history. Finally, they have a well trained army and a respectable inventory of modern weapons. Could the US defeat Iran militarily? No doubt, but at what cost in men and treasure, and with a public already going sour on our fairly cheap (compared to other wars) investment in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I personally believe that the only way to deal with Iran would be by a surprise precision bombing of their goverment HQ in Qom and other cities. Bombing the Iranian parliament while the hundreds of mullahs are in session would be a good target. Then step back and wait.
This would allow the millions of young Iranians, heartily sick of the present government, to finish the job and form a pro-west, secular government. The US could help by airlifting hundreds of pro-western Iranians living in the US and eager to return and organize. It would be messy, I grant you, but far less messy then a direct US invasion.
August 14th, 2006 at 10:16 pm
I am not in favor of an invasion of Iran per se, unless Iran was first rendered militarily impotent. I would advocate strategically bombing it into impotence and submission, using nuclear weapons if necessary. Your strategy would be a good start, and would have worked years ago, but Militant Islam is too advanced now, and has widespread support among civilians. Think about the major wars in history that led to peace. The ancient Greeks finally eliminated the Persian threat when they eventually invaded Persia and gave the civilian supporters of war a taste of war. Thanks to Scipio’s brilliance, the Romans finally defeated the Cartheginians when they invaded Carthage and subdued the Cartheginians. The Civil War was won because, finally, Sherman brought the War to the civilian supporters in the South and humiliated them there. The U.S. had to nuke Japan and bomb/destroy much of Germany to bring peace and prosperity to those countries. Militant Islam is growing quickly, and will continue to do so unless some serious damage and humiliation is brought to its backers and supporters. The longer we wait, the worse it will get. Bush and the U.N. have embolden the militants with their cease-fire, and more people will die because of it.