We Will Never Surrender

The daughter of the current Vice President of the United States attempted to shock the readers of the Washington Post this Tuesday with the revelation that Democrats and indeed, all who oppose the "troop surge" strategy in Iraq are against winning the war on terrorism. Now these kind of statements emerge all the time from the lips of such illustrious commentators as Ann Coulter, but coming from someone as educated and experienced as Liz Cheney I was shocked for all the wrong reasons.

Let us examine some of her main points. She begins early on with an interesting statement, "We will have to fight these terrorists to the death somewhere, sometime. We can't negotiate with them or "solve" their jihad. If we quit in Iraq now, we must get ready for a harder, longer, more deadly struggle later."

The first sentence here is what really scares me. If this is truly what the executive branch believes then we have already lost. There is no way we can possibly kill every terrorist on the planet Earth without inspiring others to continue the fight. I suppose we could just kill everyone, but that scenario seemed to be judged a bad one during the Cold War, and optimistic though I am, I have to agree with that conclusion.

As far as being unwilling to negotiate or solve the underlying problems of terrorism that issue is more complex. I absolutely agree that you cannot negotiate with those who have no desire to do so, I mean really, who is going to disagree with you there?

Imagine the following attempt at such a strategy: UN Representative - Hello Mr. Terrorist, how are you doing? I was wondering if you would consider discussing some of your stated problems with the majority of the countries of this wonderful world. Mr. Terrorist - I'm doing fine thanks for asking, but I'm sorry we cannot compromise on any of our statements and will continue to refuse such compromises for the foreseeable future. Now if you could please excuse me, I am going to have to ask you to leave. UN Representative - Please Sir, just for a moment consider the options available to you. Mr. Terrorist - I asked you nicely, I will not ask you again (sound of weapon loading). UN Representative - Understood! (running away)

As you can see this attempt would get nowhere. So as far as negotiations go I would have to agree with Ms. Cheney they are generally a bad idea with terrorists. Countries however are another matter, but I suppose that would just make too much sense to make that point now (and far too late in the case of Iraq to even bring it up).

However, as far as solving "their" problems that statement goes a bit too far. In fact I am of the opinion that is the only strategy that will ever work. Now keep in mind I do not mean solving problems in a way as to appease terrorists, in fact quite the opposite. The only way we are going to win this war is through removing the incentive to become a terrorist in the first place, winning over the populations that the terrorists try to recruit from and isolating them from their very support groups.

Some might say this is impossible, I do not. It will however, be very difficult and require a great deal of hard work. I seem to remember now something about how usually the harder path is the right path. In this case the easy choice is to keep on killing each other until we are all dead. That situation requires no critical thinking (other than of coming up with better ideas as to how to off each other) and will continue to make all the parties benefiting from the current situation more and more reticent to change as well as encouraging those around them to choose a side so as to avoid being killed themselves. That to me is unacceptable and something worth avoiding at all costs. I refuse to aid in passing on such a legacy to the generations that follow mine.

A quick note on the last sentence in Ms. Cheney's quote above. A longer, harder and more deadly struggle if we quit in Iraq now? Well, let's see, when did I hear that before, oh yes, right before we invaded Iraq as to a reason why we needed to dispose of Saddam Hussein. Come on, at least be original in your fear-mongering. Eventually people will catch on you are only saying the same useless drivel as before.

Ms. Cheney goes on from this point to explain why Iraq can not be given up to the terrorists. I am a little confused here, no one in office that I have heard quoted has expressed a desire for Iraq to be controlled by fundamentalist terrorists. I believe what people have voiced is the need to re-appraise our strategy in winning the fight, not in giving up the fight. Maybe Ms. Cheney has access to dialogue I haven't heard, and she probably does, but could it be more likely she simply hopes people will believe that the Democratic Presidential hopefuls want to lose the war against terrorism and leave the middle east in chaos after reading her words. The power of suggestion is never to be under-estimated and since there are many other like minded voices echoing Liz Cheney's outlook, it can be dangerous indeed.

One of my favorite parts of Ms. Cheney's article is when she discusses the danger of losing our "allies" in the war on terror. Do I really have to justify this with a response? We barely have any allies in the war on terror now and we are already losing the ones that we do, not from making overtones regarding breaking away from Iraq, but by insisting that there is only one way to fight this war. Spain has pulled out, Poland will be completely out soon, Italy most likely as well. The only strong ally we can count on is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and I don't think they will be too upset if we change our tactics, something even tells me they will be much more likely to continue to support us.

The truth is we need more allies and desperately in this fight, we have to convince the world that action is the only way to stop these killers, but we can't do that while we act like a cowboy from a John Wayne movie. That is how loner's fight and generally, loners loose.

I am again forced to recall the Cold War, where we systematically aligned the world with the Western political axis, depriving the Soviet Union of support. The same has to be done again, we require an overwhelming surge of countries saying enough is enough to the terrorists, we will not be bullied. However, until the USA provides a plan for practically implementing such a push, without killing everyone, then we can not expect it to happen miraculously and spontaneously on its own.

Here is another superb line from Liz, "Our soldiers will win if we let them." If we let them, if we let them!?! How about before we even begin to talk about letting our soldiers do anything (which I am pretty sure they won't mind if we allow the professionals to decide how best to fight, I am not a soldier and neither are the majority of us) we do the following: properly equip all of our deployed infantry with the combat armor they need to insure their lives are protected to the best of our ability, properly armor our vehicles and desert-proof their engines so they do not explode or break down pre-maturely and you know what, just for kicks why don't we even pay our soldiers properly instead of spending millions on high-tech weaponry research that doesn't even have an implementation in the kind of guerrilla warfare our troops are engaged in. Maybe after we have done all of those things we can deign to offer some advice to our troops on how to wage the war they are fighting for us. Somehow, I think I will still trust their judgment for the most part on how best to do their job.

The next line I am about to quote irks me in more ways than I have the time to expand upon so I will only mention the most general ways in which I find it at fault. The passage is as follows, "And by the way, you cannot wish failure on our soldiers' mission and claim, at the same time, to be supporting the troops. It just doesn't compute."

Confusion is again my first reaction to this troublesome statement, the Democratic leadership, who I assume most of Liz Cheney's article is addressed to, or at least written in protest to, has never said they want the soldiers to fail. I can only conclude then that what Ms. Cheney means is that you cannot express a desire for peace and simultaneously claim to support the troops. Now, why does that have to be the case?

Since the last time I checked the very goal of our troops is to achieve peace for our country why would it be opposing them to desire the same thing for them? Soldiers do not usually fight with the intention of prolonging war, soldiers fight to end wars, and more often than not to protect their loved ones and each other. If a group of people decide that there are other possibilities to resolve a conflict and voice that opinion I am not sure how that hurts our soldiers. This country is a democratic republic and the freedom to speak one's mind is guaranteed again by those same troops fighting for peace.

There are those who are complete pacifists who believe any war is wrong, but I have not yet met one of them who desired defeat and death for our own troops. To do so would be traitorous and to say that there are political leaders who believe such a thing is slanderous beyond comprehension. To me that is what does not compute.

I am going to have to ask your help to understand one of Ms. Cheney's final statements concerning the lack of steel Hilary Clinton and her colleagues have in their spine regarding the fighting in Iraq. Is it just me or does this comment seem to suggest in some way that women do not have the steel in their spine to make a stand different from their male colleagues? I find this especially hard to wrap my head around as Liz Cheney herself has been able to reach this position as a woman, so why couldn't another woman in leadership do the same? Perhaps I am simply mistaken in my reading of her diction.

To conclude I feel compelled to further quote from Ms. Cheney. Here are her closing lines, "America deserves better. It's time for everyone -- Republicans and Democrats -- to stop trying to find ways for America to quit. Victory is the only option. We must have the fortitude and the courage to do what it takes. In the words of Winston Churchill, we must deserve victory. We must be in it to win." In the words of Bart Simpson I am forced to respond by saying, "no duh." However, to be in it to win means more than being willing to blow away our enemies with machine guns. It means that we must be willing to engage in combating the evil influence they have built up over decades in their home countries and show the people of the world that they have everything to gain from eradicating terrorism as a means to protest and everything to lose from allowing it to continue.

For the record, I believe that I personally will never surrender to the forces of darkness and destruction that terrorism represents and I also believe that the people of this world are too brave to give in either.

Follow this link to read the article by Liz Cheney published in The Washington Post.