Intel Estimate: Al Qaeda is Coming

"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."

Sun Tzu

An Associated Press report quotes a Draft National Intelligence estimate that Al Qaeda is stronger than ever and is targeting the U.S. by trying even harder to sneak its operatives into this country. The estimate also says that the terrorist group has most of what it needs to strike us here.

It's also suggested that one of the main reasons for this enemy capability is Al Qaeda’s use of their safe haven along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. There they can train, recruit and plan attacks in peace. The terrorists are safe because the Pakistanis won’t fight them and we won’t go after them either.

It is absurd to believe we can defeat Al Qaeda anywhere in the world as long as they have their protected bases in Pakistan. Perceived political correctness and the fear that such attacks may imperil the Pakistani leader are not enough to allow this breeding ground to exist.

When Al Qaeda and the Taliban were on the run from us in Afghanistan, they had no place to land or take root. Now they have northwestern Pakistan. This must end and those sanctuaries must be destroyed along with any terrorists that are there. Civilian casualties are tragic, but if the terrorists have their families with them, then that's their shame, not ours.

If we continue to wage a "limited" war against the Islamic militants, there's a grave risk that we could ultimately lose this epic battle against terrorism. The Muslims have the patience to wait for many years to defeat their enemies – and they believe they are fighting for God. They have the safe haven, the strength of will and the determination to kill all of us if they can – or if we let them.

Take away the safe haven first; then kill them, capture them or put them on the run. Only then will their strength of will and determination be wounded or destroyed. We must show the terrorists that we have just as much resolve as they do. If we don’t fight them as though our civilization depends on it, then we and our children are in for a tragic struggle down the road.

Al Qaeda has said that the central battleground in this war is Iraq. The surge is just now getting up to full strength, but it depends on the Iraqis to also step up to the plate. Just in case they don’t, we better develop an alternate plan now for both Iraq and Afghanistan.

The strategy of fighting "half-wars" will never work.

SFC Chuck Grist
www.AmericanRanger.blogspot.com

No Safe Havens for Terrorists

It’s always been hard for me to agree with a Democrat, even when he’s only “sort of” a Democrat. Independent/former Democrat Joe Lieberman is on the money when he says a military strike against Iran should be considered in response to that rogue nation’s support of attacks on Americans in Iraq.

I would argue that the same reasoning justifies attacks on training areas/safe havens in Syria and Pakistan. While it’s probably not a great idea to advertise such an option, we are at a crossroads in the world where everyone with their head in the sand must look at the reality that is facing us.

Iran is not going to change, they are still developing their nuclear capability and they will not stop their support of terrorists and insurgents who are killing our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Furthermore, the mouthpiece for Iran’s ayatollahs, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is advertising the belief that the end times are near and that Israel should be wiped off the map.

Iran is not the only problem. Syria continues to support and protect the Iraqi Sunni insurgents who hide out across the border in their own camps. The government in Pakistan is either too afraid of the terrorists in their tribal areas or they are accommodating them for other reasons. As a result, the terrorist camps in these other countries are like nests of bees, creating new killers with assembly line efficiency. (Above photo is from Reuters.)

Syria, Iran and the tribal areas of Pakistan are the Laos and Cambodia of this war. During Vietnam, the North Vietnamese enemy used those adjacent countries to train, recruit and re-supply the forces that fought us in South Vietnam. The anti-war crowd never complained about their use of those countries, but the minute the American military entered Cambodia to attack enemy camps along the Ho Chi Minh Trail we were referred to as “invaders”.

It is incomprehensible that we can continue to permit Iran or Syria to train, equip and perhaps accompany terrorist killers who attack American troops in Iraq or Afghanistan. We also must end the ability of Al Qaeda and the Taliban to have a safe haven in Pakistan.

Although large-scale ground invasions are unrealistic, targeted air strikes would do much to destroy the capabilities in these training camps. If Syria, Iran and Pakistan will not eliminate these safe havens, then we have no choice but to do it ourselves.

We owe it to the men and women who are fighting the terrorists and we certainly owe to the ones who have made the ultimate sacrifice.

SFC Chuck Grist
www.AmericanRanger.blogspot.com

Victory: The Only Option

Now that the President’s new plan is out in the open, he has also made it clear that we will have to do something about the support of the various facets of the insurgency by Syria and Iran. It will be difficult to make a great difference as long as the safe havens in those countries remain untouched.

In addition to the Syrian and Iranian problems, the Iraqis themselves must end the sectarian violence and the militias must be dealt with forcefully. We cannot succeed in Iraq without the clear support of the Iraqis themselves.

The following op-ed piece discusses the importance of victory in the various fronts of the war on terror. Although victory is the only realistic option, the fact remains that the mistakes may make that goal difficult to achieve in Iraq.

The next twelve months will probably tell the tale.

VICTORY: THE ONLY OPTION IN IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN
Special to the Orlando Sentinel
September 28, 2006

The ghosts of Vietnam are peeking over the edges of their graves. American military forces are now on the defense instead of the offense. In military history, this has almost always meant defeat. American soldiers can kick the butts of anyone they fight, but they can’t prevail in the end without decisive leadership by Washington politicians.

When the decision was made to invade Iraq with a token force of soldiers, when the former Iraqi army was not recalled to provide security for its country and when the Iraqi people did not see their lives improve, the world witnessed the beginning of a host of bad decisions that were not made for military reasons but for political expediency.

Even when I served in Iraq in 2004, we could see the potential danger of Iranian-supported groups like the Mahdi Army, the private militia of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. His uprisings that year killed many Americans, but the Iraqis we put in power would not disarm these personal armies. Add the Sunni insurgents and the foreign fighters to the Shiite militias and our soldiers face a multi-faceted enemy, and each element has its own agenda.

Instead of devoting greater American resources to crushing the insurgency and its external sources of support, we have bounced back and forth across Iraq whenever a “hot spot” erupted. When we left one area to quell the violence somewhere else, the place we left would explode with insurgent activity. This is not a military on the offense; it is a force that is reacting to an enemy that has captured the initiative.

Arrogance has always been the downfall of western powers when dealing with the Arab world. The Crusaders swarmed over the Middle East to spread Christianity but instead they conducted their own “terrorist” campaigns before being driven out by the Muslim forces. The British Empire of the early twentieth century was also forced out of the region.

In both Iraq and Afghanistan the situation has worsened. Afghanistan had been a wonderful success until we allowed the Taliban free rein in northern Pakistan. The old rulers of Afghanistan have used those remote areas to train and recruit new members and to conceal our Al Qaeda enemy. Now that Pakistan has agreed with tribal leaders to stay out of those terrorist safe zones, we cannot continue to ignore the camps that exist there. If Pakistan will not clean them out, we must do so.

In Iraq we know that terrorists and their weapons of war are coming into that country from Syria and Iran. These countries have now become the Laos and Cambodia of this war. In Vietnam such sanctuaries helped the North Vietnamese outlast American resolve. Whatever happened to the American policy of dealing with those who “support, protect or harbor” terrorists?

It no longer matters whether or not we were right to invade Iraq. The Iraqi front is the epicenter of the world war against Islamic fascism. While we fret about the “rules of engagement” or the “rules of interrogation”, the enemy has only one rule: There are no rules.

Winning is the only option in both Iraq and Afghanistan, otherwise we will hand a major strategic victory to the terrorists and their sponsors. We will also fuel the determination of the Islamic fundamentalists to do just what they have promised to do and they will continue to expand their “holy war” to every corner of the globe.

I remain a soldier and I believe in the liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan as well as victory in the war on terror. Like the Vietnam veteran generals whose advice was ignored in the beginning, this old Vietnam vet also believes that you don’t fight “half-wars”.

We better do it right because the alternative world of the brutal and iron-fisted Islamic terrorists is too gruesome to contemplate.

SFC Chuck Grist

Safe Havens for Terrorists?

Yesterday, the 19th, I heard from my Army Reserve unit and I was updated regarding my pending mobilization. I am still on the list to return to active duty during the first part of January, 2007; however, I can’t help but believe that most units in the military are waiting to find out what the President’s new plan will be. Only then will they know how they will be expected to use their soldiers.

Upon my return from Iraq in October, 2004, like many veterans, I felt guilty leaving both my comrades and my new Iraqi friends behind. Sitting in safety back in the States, it remained important to me to stay tuned in to what was happening in Baghdad.

In Vietnam we faced an enemy who was able to train, equip and re-group in the sanctuaries of Laos and Cambodia. Even when America invaded Cambodia in 1971 to “clean out” those North Vietnamese camps, we were the ones accused by the anti-war crowd of “invading” Cambodia. No mention was made of the illegal use of those countries by the enemy to wage their war.

A similar situation has arisen in the Iraq and the Afghanistan wars, with insurgents and their supporters using Syria, Iran and Pakistan for the same purpose: to recruit, train, equip and re-group for attacks against us in Iraq.

I wrote the following article for the Orlando Sentinel and it appeared on December 19, 2004:


SAFE HAVENS FOR TERRORISTS?

Once upon a time, the United States was fighting a war in a far-off country. The enemy soldiers were skilled insurgents fighting to advance their own agenda. They used neighboring countries as safe havens from which they could funnel arms, ammunition and soldiers into the war zone. After mounting attacks against innocent civilians and Americans, they would run back over the border to hide and to re-supply. Then they would return to wage war again – on their terms.

While the insurgents could make use of these other countries in that bloody war long ago, the Americans could not. For political reasons, the American military fought its ground war only in the war-torn country, until it was finally decided that enough was enough. American troops invaded Cambodia, taking a terrible toll on the enemy, rousting him from his hiding places, killing many of his soldiers and capturing tons of equipment and supplies. Though the North Vietnamese had not been criticized for their “invasion” of Cambodia, a double standard of the time accused the Americans of an “illegal” invasion.

There is gathering evidence that some of Saddam Hussein’s Sunni henchmen are based in Syria. With that government’s likely support, these old friends of Saddam are sending arms, ammunition and insurgents into Iraq to kill and maim both Iraqis and Americans. Further evidence suggests that the Iranian Shiite government is also supporting – with men and arms – efforts by Shiite insurgents to destroy the hope of freedom in Iraq.

Although, there is little disagreement that the war in Iraq could have been managed better all along, our commitment to the Iraqi people must remain firm. We turned their lives upside down in the process of liberating them. Now that the going is getting tough, as it always does in war, we must remember that we have no choice but to endure.

President Bush said in the beginning that we would go after the terrorists wherever they chose to hide. He said that if you support or harbor terrorists you were also the enemy. Those statements were inspiring and led to the liberation of tens of millions of people in Afghanistan and Iraq. The bill for the purchase of that liberation has been paid, and is still being paid, with the lives of gallant American and coalition soldiers as they continue to do a magnificent job.

Still, the world is watching the level of our nation’s resolve. Will America cave in or stay the course? As a soldier who has served in both Vietnam and Iraq, I pray we will not stop until victory is sure.

Soon, the Bush administration will have to decide how to handle the insurgent bases in Syria, Iran or other countries. Most soldiers would agree that the only way to win a war is to turn the enemy’s offense into the defense. We have progressed from fighting an offensive war to liberate Iraq to fighting a defensive war – our decisions have become reactive, not proactive. This is certainly a recipe for disaster, if not failure. If we are to prevail, we must go after the insurgents wherever they are.

There is one very good reason that we have not had a terrorist attack in this country since Sept. 11, 2001. We have put the terrorists on the run and they have learned that it is difficult to wage war from a hole in the ground. We must not let them find new safe havens in Syria, Iran or any other country that chooses to mock our efforts at defeating terrorism. Our enemies must never forget that, if they hurt our citizens or support those who do, we will hunt them down and capture or kill them, and we will do it relentlessly, no matter how long it takes and no matter where we have to go.

Most of all, we do not need another black wall in Washington filled with the names of warriors who gave their lives for a politically abandoned cause. This war must be won, regardless of the cost, and America’s sons and daughters must never again die in vain.

SFC Chuck Grist