Authored on April 29, 2004

Introduction There is a very simple fact that needs to be realized by the majority of the country. We are at war. Iraq is not some outside auxiliary that the President is obsessed with. They have been very real and active participants in state sponsored terrorism. Iraq is now faced with the dual dilemma that the majority wants the absolute power that they previously suffered under while the minority wants the absolute power that they enjoyed under Sadaam. In the meantime there are Al Qaeda terrorists and Iranians that are actively inciting insurgencies.

So how do we win that portion of the war on terror? We must fight to win; we must stop telling the troops that they only need to be in Iraq for a set amount of time; we must threaten and be willing to use any weapon in our arsenal. This is part one and it deals with why we have to actually try to win at all costs the War On Terrorism as well as each battle within.

From The Past Funny concept: winning the war. Too many times we enter wars, conventional or political, attempting to win the war by reputation alone. If you want to see how successful that tactic is then look at the results in Somalia. Try the War On Drugs out if you want to see a political war that is not being given the full effort to win it.

The most famous war that we did not try to win is Vietnam. Every time an arbitrary rule is put in place so as to not upset the enemy it lets the enemy know the limits they can go beyond to win. For example by stopping our attacks at the 38th parallel it lets the enemy know exactly where they could go for refuge. Not bombing the Ho Chi Minh Trail let the enemy know what route to use for re-supplying their units and also let the enemy know that disguises of civilian dress worked well for infiltration.

Yes, Vietnam is our biggest military failure. But it was a failure because we were our biggest enemy on two fronts and our opponent knew how to exploit those problems. Our enemy was far inferior to us. We were powerful enough to defeat ourselves by limiting our rules of engagement. Do not fire until fired upon is ridiculous. I am glad that the group-think morons that came up with that were not in charge of the European theatre of World War II. Our most detrimental enemy was our own politicians limiting our resolve to use all means of winning that war. Our worst accomplice were the protests at home like Jane Fonda and John Kerry and David Horowitz who killed our troop morale. That made a force that was unwilling to fight.

During the Cold War we were only as affective as the limits of warfare that we set. Fortunately for the world we had Presidents who understood this and a population educated enough to understand this. They made it very clear that the nuclear weapons we had were not lawn ornaments. We were very willing to use them. When Carter entered office it was very clear that Carter was not willing to use nuclear weapons at all. He announced it. That is when the enemy began to walk over us in the arms treaty negotiations. Once Reagan took office it was very clear that he was serious about being willing to fire the arsenal. In fact his detractors did more to help him by implying that he was too stupid to handle "the button" perpetuating the idea that he is able, very able, to unleash nukes.

In The Present What needs to be done now is for Bush to make it clear that there is no length that is too far to take to win this war. He must convince the world, both enemies and allies alike, that nuclear weapons are very possible to be used against terrorists and the nations harboring them. Why are we so afraid of Al Qaeda? Because they are willing to do anything to win the war. We know that. That is why the fear of "dirty" bombs and "briefcase nuclear weapons" is so real. As long as the enemy is trying to win the war so must we. As long as the enemy is willing to use all tools available to them so must we.

Certainly we cannot detonate a low-yield nuke on Al Qaeda. But we could have in Iraq. Would Sadaam have continued to thumb his nose at us if he believed for a moment that we would nuke him? Maybe. He may have pushed us to the point where we would have had to back up that threat. Would the next country be so cavalier? I sincerely doubt it. Would the next country be more wary of assisting terrorists? You damn well better believe it. The fear of reprisal from the U.S. was enough of a risk for Libya. Syria and Iran need more convincing. Saudi Arabia came to realize that our mutual hatred for each other is not as important as removing the risk of terrorism. North Korea understands our current resolve and knows they are the enemy. That is why they are supporting John Kerry for President. They know he is not willing to win any war at any cost.

For The Future At the minimum we must be willing to match the risks that our enemy is willing to put forward. Our willingness to do so is not simply for the enemy we face today but for the enemies lining up to take us on tomorrow. Once they see what we are willing to do most of the potential enemies will get out of line and rethink their long-term goals of terrorizing the world.