Have We the Stomach to Win?
“Our greater peril lies within ourselves”

By Marilyn M. Brannan, Assoc. Editor
Unravelling The New World Order

In the days toward the end of the Civil War in America, President Lincoln had to make what some have argued was a cruel decision. He understood that, absent a conclusive, decisive military victory over the Confederacy, the Union would be dissolved. He was determined that should not happen. And, in light of the horrendous bloodshed and suffering that had occurred, it was also necessary to insure that the institution of slavery would never again be reinstated to serve the interests of those who, for economic reasons, refused to see the evil inherent in it. The conflict had to be forced to an end—even a bitter end.

Suzanne Fields included a bit of history in a recent column, which we believe draws an eerie analogy to these present days of conflict and unrest over a war that, for largely political reasons, has been configured in the rantings of the Left and in the left-serving press, as a “divisive” war.

“In the summer of 1864, the nation had grown weary of war; the thrill of saving the Union was fading and Abraham Lincoln's attempt to convert the war [that was fought] to save the Union to the war to end slavery was getting only mixed reviews. Lincoln feared for the Union, and imagined his presidency doomed. . . . George B. McClellan ought to have been everything the Democrats could have asked for as their candidate in 1864. . . . But McClellan, for all his heroics, his medals and his reputation as ‘the young Napoleon,’ could gain no traction in a dirty, negative campaign.

“McClellan supporters referred to Lincoln as an ‘ignoramus’ and a ‘butcher’; the Republicans ran as the party of patriotism, accusing the Democrats of disloyalty. But then Lincoln loosed Sherman on the Georgia breadbasket, burning and looting from Atlanta to the sea while Phil Sheridan drove down the Valley of Virginia with similar ruthlessness. Weariness with war soon gave way to renewed confidence, Lincoln was rescued, and the Republicans won with 55 percent of the vote.” (“An Echo From an Earlier War,” TownHall.com, May 17, 2004)

Bloodshed for a Stalemate?
There is no plainer way to say it: War is hell. But if the stakes are such that war must be undertaken, and if all other remedies have failed, then a decision to fight to a stalemate is an absolutely unacceptable resolution. To march our troops into hell only to pull back before the conditions that made war necessary in the first place have been eradicated is an inexcusable affront to their sense of purpose and justice and to that of countless Americans who have supported the war because they saw we had no other choice.

Many are frustrated by the fact that the United States has the military and economic capability to persist—for generations if necessary—in the current struggle against the barbarianism of radical Islam, but as Tony Blankley put it so well a few days ago, “Our greater peril lies within ourselves.”

Even enormous potential for victory can be brought to bear in this war on barbarianism only if our collective will is to win. “Now, less than three years after America began to face down the greatest threat yet to our national survival, not only has half the country given up the fight, but they have closed their eyes to the danger. . . . they mistakenly believe that we can ‘elect’ to lose without serious consequences. By definition, any politicians proposing to turn Iraq over to the United Nations or other weakling entities are prepared to accept strategic defeat,” Blankley wrote (“America: The Strong Horse,” May 19, 2004).

“Nitwit pundits” talk about “exit strategies,” Blankley says, but he warns that “any such exit strategy will lead us on a short path to hell . . . because the essential strategic element in war is to defeat the enemy’s will to win, and accepting anything less than triumph in Iraq will catastrophically embolden the terrorists.”

Shortly before World War II, Winston Churchill warned that the world was moving into a time of “measureless peril.” That is exactly where we are today—in the midst of measureless peril.

The distressing truth—which bodes ill for U.S. victory against terrorism—is that the President’s political opposition (which includes huge segments of the media) is more intent on engineering his defeat in November than in securing America’s victory in this battle for our very lives.

Our Hysterical Media—And Those Whom They Serve
In recent weeks, there was abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq by a handful of aberrant American soldiers who violated our military code of conduct. Now, they will face our justice system and pay the price for their illegal actions. That is a good thing; that is how we handle misconduct in our military.

What is most astonishing about the Abu Ghraib mess is the resulting flood of media hysteria here in the U.S., far exceeding the anger over the calculated “oil for food” scam at the UN that raked off billions of dollars earmarked to provide food and medicine for Iraqi children. Thousands of Iraqi children starved to death as the funds were funneled instead into bank accounts of sleazy profiteers and bureaucrats. Why has there been so little outrage in the American media about this? The answer is simple: left-loving editors and reporters have seen an opportunity in the prison abuse scandal to discredit the involvement of British and American military in Iraq.

Neither did the inexpressibly vicious beheading of an American citizen—captured on film for the world to see—elicit the level of moral outrage expressed by the press over the indignities inflicted on terrorist prisoners at Abu Ghraib. The tone and content of recent coverage by gullible American media appears to have been dictated by Arab interests. However, “gullible” may not be the most accurate characterization. A strategy of “calculated complicity,” adopted to undermine support for our involvement in Iraq, is probably more accurate. American media were quick to pick up on the Arab media characterization of Nicholas Berg’s beheading as “retaliation” for Abu Ghraib abuses—even though Berg was abducted weeks before the Abu Ghraib scandal surfaced.

Fake photographs of British and American soldiers “abusing” prisoners were published in The Daily Mirror in Britain and The Boston Globe in the U.S. It appears there was little or no fact-checking and no healthy skepticism—just a gleeful rush to judgment by reporters with an agenda, armed with “facts too good to check.”

Bloodthirsty press members, eager to nail Donald Rumsfeld as an “accessory to torture,” have constructed outrageous suppositions in the absence of any supporting facts. Reporters demanding Rumsfeld’s resignation have layered inference upon inference to make their case, hedging their libelous accusations with such phrases as “this suggests,” “potentially abusive techniques” and “although no direct links have been found”, and on and on.

The attempts by the press to criminalize virtually all anti-terrorist measures is running amok among those who serve, either intentionally or unwittingly, as agents of our Islamist enemies. Even limited and supervised stress imposed on detainees for the purpose of obtaining crucial intelligence is considered impermissible by many in our weak-kneed, politically correct and self-righteous left-wing press.

Americans should be asking, When was it decided that we must we fight wars with our hands tied behind our backs—with our access to intelligence effectively terminated, and with our enemies dictating the terms of warfare? We are at war with a brutal enemy who is determined to destroy us. Why are we not calling this complicity with the enemy what it is—sedition?

The actions of the media reveal all to clearly which side they serve. John O’Sullivan, in his article, “Left Eye’s View,” tells a story that might easily be applied to much of the American press today.

He writes, “In World War II, a passer-by, lost in London’s main official thoroughfare of Whitehall, stopped a military officer and asked him which side the Defense Department was on. The officer thought for a moment and then said, ‘Well, it’s hard to be sure, but our side, I hope.’” (“Left Eye’s View,” National Observer, May 18, 2004)

Tough Times, Tough Measures, Tough Leaders
Only a decisive, conclusive victory over this enemy is acceptable; a negotiated settlement with the terrorists or a capitulation to the demands we turn Iraq over to the UN will only allow the forces of barbarianism to flourish with renewed confidence. The future we are facing may well be a violent and prolonged struggle, but hiding from the truth will not change it.

Current polls indicate George W. Bush maintains a slender lead over John Kerry even after a month of the worst news imaginable. John Kerry has not seemed able to establish himself as a leader or capitalize on his “heroic” military service in Vietnam.

This seems somewhat hopeful, but the possibility remains that we, the mightiest nation on earth, may lose our nerve and “snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.”

Will President Bush take all actions and use as much force as necessary to secure victory in Iraq? Will he be courageous enough to ignore the advice of his “political” advisors and listen to his own sound instincts? We believe it will depend largely on the will of the American people, expressed through letters to news organizations, to the office of the President, to members of Congress, through editorials and through various other channels of communication.

Let your voices be heard, my friends. Pray for our President. Pray for our nation. And may God help us.

#####