“The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave.�
-Patrick Henry

Who is winning the War on Terrorism? Every day we are inundated with stories of disaster and calamity in the Middle East. Terrorism in Israel and a guerrilla war in Iraq. There are more Americans deaths nearly every day. There are constant warnings of imminent catastrophes. Two years after September 11th, the question must be asked: are we winning or losing the war?

Do not believe what the mainstream media and its various minions have to say on the matter. They are not fit to adjudicate on this subject. They think in the short term and their judgement is clouded by their biases which, with very few exceptions, are fundamentally anti-American ones. The people who run the media today mostly came of age during the Vietnam War. They are products of the counter-cultural left; people who hate the United States and everything it stands for. The dullards among them blandly repeat the Gospel of the left because they believe it to be the truth. Their leaders know the falseness of their religion, but continue to proselytize for it because they understand that the strongest weapons possessed by the left in its unending war to destroy the Republic are the media’s powers of mass-persuasion.

In the days to come, as we approach the second anniversary of September 11th, we will hear many analyses of the results of the War on Terrorism. These will, I predict, focus almost entirely upon the negative aspects of the war- such as US losses in Iraq and the supposed loss of civil liberties at home. The big networks will produce plenty of nauseatingly asinine stories featuring some veiled woman crying over her husband, justly jailed for his terrorist ties. Most of all, the media will not forgo the opportunity to open their fall season by slandering and smearing President Bush, whom the left loathes with the fire of a thousand suns.

We need to forget about the clutter. The nation is covered in a deep fog laid down by the left, seeking to obscure the issue. The real question is this: are the terrorists and their supporters now stronger or weaker than they were two years ago?

The answer must be that they are weaker. They have lost operatives and they have lost bases. They have suffered defeats. We are winning this war.

But just because the terrorists have seen defeat does not mean that they are defeated. It does not follow that because, as of this very moment, we are winning this war that, in the end, we will ultimately prevail. Our enemies are strong, they are fanatically determined, and they have many friends. It is still entirely possible that, as in Vietnam, America could win every battle and ultimately lose the war.

The war is now two years old. It will last for many more years. It is time for us to examine just what victory will require and how to best bring it about.

A Matter of Goals:
Victory in this war will come when all of America’s major objectives have been achieved and its enemies’ plans have been thwarted. This is important to discuss because, fundamentally, the final victory objectives of the War on Terrorism have never been publicly discussed in great detail. When is the war over? It is when Osama Bin Laden is killed? Is it when al-Qaeda is destroyed? What are our war objectives?

I’m going to suggest a rather broad set. The ones I’ve labelled as ‘major’ must, in my opinion, be completed before any victory in the War on Terrorism can be declared. The ‘minor’ objectives are not absolutely essential to victory: but it would be in the national interests of the United States to achieve them.

Major Objectives:
1. The Destruction of al-Qaeda and Associated Groups: No victory will come in this war so long as al-Qaeda and its local affiliates survive. These groups must be rooted out and their members killed and arrested. This is the major goal of the war.
2. The Overthrow of the Iranian, Syrian, and North Korean Governments: When it comes to the sponsorship of terrorists and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction these are the “big three.� All have active programs for the development of Weapons of Mass Destruction. North Korea may already have nuclear weapons and Iran, almost certainly, soon will. These governments all provide support to the enemies of the United States- Iran and Syria are supporting the insurgent forces in Iraq. Moreover, Iran and Syria are both deeply involved in supporting anti-Israeli terrorism.
3. The Establishment of a Stable Government in Iraq: The situation in Iraq must be stabilized. Iraq holds the central position in the Middle East- the creation of a stable, pro-Western government in Iraq would serve greatly to undermine the present regimes in Iraq and Syria and, additionally, would help boost American morale and bolster the international credibility of the cause. There is only one way to establish a stable government in Iraq: to slaughter the Ba’athists and Islamists who have infiltrated the country,
4. The Maintenance of a Pro-Western Government in Pakistan: Allowing Islamists to take over in Pakistan would be a major blow to the United States in this war. An Islamist government in Pakistan would be nuclear-armed and well positioned to undermine US efforts in both Afghanistan and Iran. Aid to Pakistan must be increased and Musharraf should be encouraged to take a harder line against internal Moslem extremists. Plans for strikes against Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal should be made, just in case there is a coup. Additionally, as a final resort, the US should seek to covertly forge closer ties with India.
5. The Creation of Stability in Israel: The present situation in Israel is at the heart of this war. Therefore, resolving it will be the key to securing a final victory. The resolution likely here will not, initially, be created through diplomacy. There can be no peace so long as the Gaza, Judea, and Samaria are overrun with terrorists and their cohorts. Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, Fatah, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and all other terrorist groups which operate against Israel must be exterminated wholesale. Mahmoud Abbas cannot effectively negotiate with Israel because he has nothing to offer and no control over the situation. The first step on the road to peace is the death of several thousand terrorists and their supporters. The United States must encourage Israel to towards this conclusion, provide it with aid and arms, and provide it with diplomatic support while it does it.
6. The End of Saudi Arabian Funding and Support for Terrorism: Saudi money is at the heart of both international terrorism and the spread of the virus of Wahhabism. The Saudis do not fund these things so much because they have any great love of terrorism- but rather because it allows them to export their domestic problems. Either they must cease this support and eliminate the enemies of freedom who operate within their borders, or they must have their Kingdom fall under a rain of American bombs.

Minor Objectives:
1. The Death or Capture of Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein: We must be very careful on this one. Killing of capturing one or both of these men would be a positive development- but far from the end of the war. Focusing too much energy and effort upon them could lead (dangerously) to the American people believing that their demise means victory.
2. The Securing of Oil Reserves in the Middle East: The flow of Middle Eastern oil will, for the foreseeable future, be critical to the continuing health of Western economies. The cut-off of Middle Eastern oil would be a heavy blow to the world economy. Therefore every measure must be taken to bring Iraq’s oil production back up and to prevent any cut-off of the oil flows from elsewhere.
3. The Overthrow of Secondary Enemy Governments Such as those in the Sudan, Venezuela, Libya, and Cuba: There are a number of smaller, second-tier, state-sponsors of terrorism or allies of the enemies of America. Venezuela has ties to al-Qaeda and is run by an anti-American maniac. Libya has an active program for the development of weapons of mass destruction and, historically, has been a state sponsor of terrorism. These are governments which ought to go- and we’d be better off for their end- but which are not critical to the war. Terrorism can be defeated if Castro continues to rule Cuba. It will not be defeated as long as the Ayatollahs rule Iran.
4. The Creation of New Sources of Energy, Outside of the Middle East: It is also important that new sources of oil be tapped- most notably in the Alaskan Natural Wildlife Reserve, but also in other parts of the world. Additionally, the construction of additional energy generating capacity, especially additional nuclear plants, will help to lessen dependence upon foreign oil.
5. The Break-Up of the European Union: If possible the War on Terrorism should be used to drive as many wedges as possible through the European Union. The Iraq War did a great job of creating additional tensions within Europe. Future wars will, almost certainly, do this same. The US should use all means, including the use of the CIA, to further divide Europe with the goal of preventing the emergence of a superpower competitor in the form of a European superstate. Particular emphasis should be put on retaining British independence from any state-like European arrangement. The CIA might even be used to fund anti-European propaganda in the United Kingdom.
6. The Direction of Remaining Islamist Energy Against China: However hard the war is waged, it will not be possible to kill every Islamist in the world. Therefore it would be best to reroute them onto a new course- one where they might hurt an enemy of America. A combination of deft military and diplomatic moves, along with some clever intelligence work, might somehow convince Islamists that they would be better off fighting the Communist Chinese than the United States. Perhaps the Chinese could be manoeuvred into some kind of war in Central Asia and then abandoned to their fate.
7. The Establishment of New Alliances With Russia and India: Russia and India will prove to be important allies of the United States; both in this present war and in later conflicts. Each has their own problems with Moslem terrorists, which makes them natural allies in the present war. Moreover, alliances with these powers will prove even more useful in the future, if and when the United States will be forced to move against Europe and China.

The Next Moves:
Naturally the question must then be: what’s next for this war? The first priority is clearly Iraq, where there is now a second war going on in Iraq. This, contrary to what those liberals still whining over the President’s May 1st “Mission Accomplished� speech would say, is not simply a continuation of the war which began last March, the war to destroy the regime of Saddam Hussein. Rather, this is a new and entirely different kind of war, fought against a different, more radical, more brutal, and more determined foe. This war is no longer primarily against the Ba’athist. Our primary enemy in Iraq today is the Islamist.

Iraq, the word would seem to be in Muslim circles, has become the new Afghanistan. What we face is an international Jihad, with fighters coming to Iraq from every corner of the Earth to fight the Great Satan. This is something which carries with it both great peril and a great opportunity. This, in many ways, was a critical reason for invading Iraq in the first place.

Yes, it is true that the arrival of Islamist forces will place US troops in Iraq in even greater danger than they are today, and that their actions will impose additional hardships upon the people of Iraq. However, a direct and prolonged confrontation between the Coalition and the Jihadists in Iraq will produce something else as well: a chance to fight and slaughter the Islamists on their own home turf, thereby greatly reducing the population of ‘Martyrs’ available for action elsewhere and demoralizing Islamists worldwide. Every Islamist who has his brains splattered across the hot Baghdad streets is an Islamist no longer available to attack Americans at home. We must remember that. Now, as in the Cold War, America fights its battles in Baghdad and Mosul so that it does not, some day, have to fight them in St. Louis and Chicago.

The Islamist Jihadists are brave, there is no denying that. The Afghans charged into Soviet guns for a decade: but they could not have done it without tens of billions of dollars in American aid. These Jihadists have no superpower patron and, if we behave intelligently, they will soon have no patrons at all. There is only a limited supply of willing martyrs in the world. Only a certain, very small, percentage of any given population will volunteer to serve in suicide attacks. All of the hijackers on September 11th were not volunteers, only a few new the real reason they would be hijacking those planes. Every willing martyr cut down by American machine guns is one willing martyr no longer available to war his semtex coat to a Washington Redskins game.

We need to turn these fronts on which the Islamists are stupid enough to directly engage the might of the West into killing fields. Allow me to lay out a few principles for fighting the sort of quasi-organized Islamist armies which now exist in so many places.

No Sanctuary: The greatest mistake of the United States and Russia in the three most recent major losing guerrilla wars involving a great power (Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Chechnya) has been to allow the enemy force to establish a secure sanctuary, protected by international borders and a lack of political will to act. In Vietnam the North Vietnamese were able to operate out of their own country without any fear of a ground invasion as well as to largely have free reign over Laos and Cambodia. In Afghanistan the US used Pakistan as a conduit for supplies, as well as a save haven for meetings and planning. In Chechnya the Chechens have been able to use neighbouring Georgia as a secure area. In all cases the powers contemplated (and in the case of Vietnam took) action against these sanctuaries: but none destroyed them. No modern guerrilla force can long operate without outside support and secure areas from which to plan operations.

Therefore, the United States must take immediate and extreme action to deny all sanctuaries to the enemy forces in Iraq. Specifically this means taking action of some type against, at a minimum, both Iran and Syria, who are clearly aiding the insurrectionists in various ways. We must annihilate the terrorists, wherever they go, and if Syria and Iran stand in our way then we should annihilate them as well.

However, given the global character of this war, there is another excellent way of drawing some of the pressure off of our forces in Iraq. There are reports that an increasing number of the Islamists are Chechen in origin- veterans of the wars against Russia. The situation in Chechnya has degenerated into a stalemate, freeing up some fighters to make their way elsewhere. This simply will not do: either we want those enemies tied down in Chechnya, or we want them dead (and preferably the latter).

The United States should immediately reverse its Chechnya policy, instead of urging restraint it should urge Russia to strike out against the terrorist murderers with a maximum level of force, even going so far as to bribe them to get them to do it if we must. We should also drop all objections to a Russian invasion of Georgia. Russia must do what it must to deal with the Islamist vermin that threaten it.

No Quarter: Modern US Army doctrines tend towards casualty-free warfare on both sides. This is an admirable trait when dealing with an honourable foe, but it is a poor one when dealing with Islamists. They will take any act of mercy as an act of weakness and, therefore, encouragement for them to commit future atrocities. Therefore, there should be no mercy for them and, in most cases, no quarter either. They should be killed where they stand and left to rot in the sands. When we find them, or suspect that we have found them, we should kill them and anyone with them unless they immediately surrender- and we should go to no lengths to offer them a chance to surrender.

No Weakness: Most of all, we must not convince the Islamists that they cannot win. The fifth column amongst us, the ones who root for America’s enemies, they are the greatest enemies of freedom in the world. They are more dangerous than the terrorists for, without them, the terrorists would not act against us. The reason why the Islamists act is not because they are crazy, but rather because history has convinced them that they can win.

Any display of weakness or a lack of resolve at this point, the expression of any doubts about the continuation of the war, the expression of opinions that the United States should withdraw: under the present circumstances, especially with our globalized media, this is no longer merely protest or ‘dissent’: it is treason. The strategy of both the global Islamists and the forces in Iraq is simple: break the will of Americans through a de facto alliance with the traitors in the United States.

We should not dismiss this easily for, after all, it is the only strategy which has ever been used to defeat the United States. America did not lose Vietnam upon this battlefield and it will not lose this war upon the battlefield. But it could still lose it, if we let the traitors win on the home front once more. They, not we, are responsible for the betrayal of freedom in Vietnam and, if we let them, they will be responsible for another betrayal of freedom today. In the days, weeks, and years to come we must fight all enemies of the Untied States: foreign and domestic.

The second priority for the immediate future is action in Israel. This may already be underway. The terrorists there cannot be dealt with by talk. They must be killed- and killed in great numbers. This will put additional pressure on Islamists elsewhere, especially those going to Iraq. It will be, essentially, combined with Russian action in Chechnya and the continued operations if Afghanistan, a fourth front in the Islamic Jihad. To date the losses of the Palestinian terrorists have been relatively minimal- a few thousand at the most. An aggressive Israeli policy of assassinations of all known terrorists and their closest associates could double that number in a few weeks while inflicting only a minimal amount of harm upon Palestinian civilians (a ‘civilian’, in this case, being defined as a ‘non-combatant who does not throw rocks and soldiers or jump in the path of bullets’). The present conditions in the world give us a great chance to, over the next few months, break the back of the Islamist war machine.