In spite of the near peaceful conditions now, it seems there are still efforts among many Democrats as well as some factions in Iraq to remove all U.S. troops quickly. I think that scenario is risky and something that Iraq should consider carefully before pursuing as an option. Here’s why.

Iran is an unfriendly neighbor. Iran has shown they are very willing to meddle in the affairs of their neighbors as they are doing well beyond Iraq in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. Likewise, Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, already has long-range missiles, and is a destabilizing force in the region. That is a dangerous combination to have next door. Without a counter-balancing military force, it could be suicide for Iraq.

If the United States were to remove all combat forces who would be left to defend Iraq? Iraq has no air force to compete with Iran’s. Iraq has no heavy equipment or other weapons with which to repel foreign aggressors. In short, Iraq depends on the United States to keep Iran or any aggressor out of their borders.

Remember it wasn’t that many years ago that Iran and Iraq were at war. The 1980s saw massive casualties on both sides as these two regional powers battled it out. It was only with American help that Iraq was able to push Iran back and essentially end the war.

I’m guessing there are quite a few military personnel in Iran who dream of the day they can take revenge on Iraq. Without American forces, Iraq would be an easy target. If Iran is allowed to develop nuclear weapons, the picture is changed exponentially and gives Iraq almost no hope. Nuclear blackmail would be so easy for Iran to pull off.

So, with these things in mind, Iraq would be wise to consider the successes of Japan and Germany and welcome an American presence to manage their national security needs. From a purely self-interested point of view, Iraq would be wise to pursue agreements and offer incentives that keeps us there permanently. Without having to spend for national security, Japan and Germany were able to rapidly transition back into the role of economic superpowers. Iraq could do the same in short time. Why they don’t push for such agreements puzzles me.

Note - I’m not saying that long-term security agreements with Iraq would be in the best interests of the United States. I’m just arguing that Iraq (and the Democrats) should consider the risks of standing alone in a dangerous world before removing American forces.

On the 7th anniversary of September 11, 2001, I am thankful that we have not been attacked on our soil since that dreadful day.  I am very grateful for the incredible sacrifices that hundreds of thousands of military personnel and their families have given to protect us. I am also deeply honored by those who gave their life in the fight to protect ours. I elaborated more about those thoughts in a post entitled “Remembering 9/11” on my company blog earlier today.

I think it is fitting to commend President George W. Bush for his leadership in the war against radical Islam. I feel his unwavering dedication to offensive military action against terrorism is a major reason why we have not experienced a second attack. His move to take the battle to them on their soil has undoubtedly,  in my mind, saved thousands of American civilian lives.

Furthermore, the invasion of Iraq created a “terrorist magnet” that pitted radicals against our highly-trained and prepared military instead of leaving them free to attack unarmed civilians at home. That strategy provided an important element in our safety, I feel, by allowing thousands of bad guys to be killed and captured.

I am also thankful for the dedicated intelligence operations that have been put into place to intercept plots and plans against America and other Western targets. These noteworthy efforts are not forgotten by me.

In spite of our best intentions, though, it could all be in vain if it were not for the grace and mercy of God. I am reminded of Psalm 127:1: “Unless the LORD builds the house, They labor in vain who build it; Unless the LORD guards the city, The watchman stays awake in vain.”

I am incredibly thankful for God’s blessings on our efforts and pray for continued success both at home and abroad. May we as Americans always build and watch and pray for God’s continued good success.

Looking over headline events of late, it is easy to become pessimistic over the course of world affairs. From one end to the other there seems to be problems. Over the past five years I have moved from cautiously optimistic to down-right concerned at times. Here are some of the reasons why I am concerned over the storm clouds that I see gathering.

• Iran — I don’t see much efforts to stop the next Hitler. We killed off one Hitler in Saddam Hussein and that was reason for optimism. I am concerned, however, over the lack of seriousness taken by most nations to the grave dangers posed by a nuclear Iran.
• Russia — The reports I hear is that it’s looking more like the Soviet Union there of late. Putin’s political enemies are mysteriously dying while he appears to be amassing power.
• The Democrats — I don’t see a single leading Democrat among the Presidential contenders who has a backbone strong enough to take on the terrorists in Iraq let alone deal with preventing a nuclear Iran. There is lots of talk but no assurance of any serious action to stop terrorists and emerging threats.
• The Republicans — I don’t see what I would call a truly good national leader in the whole party. There are pockets of strength and some promising individuals but I’m afraid the glaring problems are more evident right now.
• Erosion of Human Rights — There are massive human rights problems in dictatorial parts of the world like Myanmar and Darfur. Other nations like Russia are experiencing a regression into a totalitarian-styled regime. Even many western nations are limiting freedoms in the name of hate-crimes legislation and anti-terrorism laws.
• Energy Policy — It seems that most of the world’s supply of energy is concentrated within political hot spots — dangerous places that are politically unstable and undesirable trading partners. And to make matters worse, most Democrats continue to oppose enhancing our domestic capabilities to produce energy. That’s simply wrong and very short-sighted. It makes us and our economy extremely vulnerable.

So with these things in mind, there is a lot to be concerned about. I offer them as a warning of pending danger given the current direction and trends. However, even though storm clouds are gathering, that does not guarantee a storm is coming. A strong wind of change could sweep through and blow these problems away. It’s also comforting to know that even within a storm there are reasons for hope and places of shelter. It’s also true that most of the time things are not as bad as they appear.

Many Democrats, while stating that we have lost the War in Iraq and should leave now, are asking Republican supporters to define what victory means. This question is often asked to counter the accusation that they (the Democrats) do not support our troops and are on a path of retreat.

So with that in mind, I offer the following definition of victory in Iraq. But before stating my definition of victory, I wish to lay out a few points that leads me to arrive at this definition.

• Force is the only language terrorists understand, therefore, we must speak to them from a position of force.
• The United States is safest by staying on the offense and putting constant pressure on terrorists and terrorist regimes.
• We must operate on their turf to prevent them from gaining a foothold on ours.
• Iraq is currently the central stage in the global war against terrorism (the long War against Radical Islam).
• We cannot demonstrate any sign of weakness or it will be interpreted as a lack of resolve and encourage them to wait us out.
• Radical Islamic fighters actually seek death at the hands of “infidels” in an effort to gain rewards in the afterlife. If we weren’t there, they would follow us here to die in homicide bombings.
• We didn’t start this War but we must end it.

With these long-term thoughts in mind, the invasion of Iraq made perfect sense. Furthermore, it is inconceivable to leave Iraq now. Iraq represents the first major battle in the long War against Radical Islam where we actually got credit for firing the first shot. It was long overdue, in my opinion. Everything else before, from the 1970s to 2001 was merely a weak response to some act of terrorism committed against us. Decades of relative inaction emboldened terrorists to carry out the 9/11 attacks. I’m sure the 9/11 terrorist planners anticipated elements of the Afghanistan campaign; however, I don’t think they were prepared for the invasion of Iraq. Therein lies the brilliance of that move.

The surprise move to invade Iraq forced terrorists to shift gears dramatically and fight armed American soldiers instead of blowing up more unarmed civilians. It cut into territory they once felt they could depend on for support. It removed a regime that had provided free oil and financing to terrorist-sponsoring nations and homicide bombers. In short, it changed the landscape dramatically.

I define this successful transition in the long War as a victory. The tables have been turned and the balance has been shifted in our favor. It put us in the driver’s seat for the first time in the over 30 years that this War has been waged against us and we did little. So today, every terrorist killed or captured is a victory for us. Everyday we have a strong foothold to launch more attacks against terrorists is a victory. Everyday we secure and train allies to do the same sweetens our victory and gives hope to millions who can now grow up with a different outlook on life. Iraq, while difficult, represents a major victory for us.

So I am thankful for our troops who liberated millions from a brutal dictator and his evil sons. I am thankful our military is on the front lines taking the fight to the enemy so he is too battered to take it to us. I grieve for every hero who dies in the fight. Their sacrifice is not in vain. They have done a huge service the extent of which we will probably never know.

In conclusion, I define victory in Iraq as removing a terrorist-supporting regime and securing a place to kill and disrupt terrorists. First and foremost, we are there with our best interests in mind and fighting terrorists is in our best interests. Our military presence in Iraq created the irresistible “terrorist magnet” needed to kill them on the battlefield instead of waiting for them to invade our civilian population at home. An since a dead terrorist is no longer a threat to anyone, we gain victory in Iraq every day.

I’ve been very frustrated with recent developments on the domestic and foreign policy scene involving the Democratic leadership in Congress who is seeking to micro-manage the War and weaken the President. Their actions give reason for our enemies to hope for another day to fight. I am also concerned about the weak responses of some of our allies and the inactions of those who should be our allies.

At the risk of being simplistic, I think some guiding principles should emerge to help navigate our nation through these trying times. It is my firm belief that historians will one day point out that the winner of the Long War Against Radical Islam was the side who had the most patience, vision and tenacity — essentially the nation(s) willing to do what it took to wear the other side down.

So, as a work in progress, I propose some basic thoughts or principles to guide our nation’s actions and responses in winning this War:

We must choose to win.

We must seek victory above all else. If we fail we lose everything. We should seek to utterly defeat our enemies. Unconditional surrender. No compromise. No substitute for victory. Our resolve should be stronger than steel. We must win this war no matter how long it takes.

This is a long war.

From the perspective of world history, I believe this War will be identified as starting in the early 1970s and will span more than half a century. We must carefully consider this War in the light of history if we are to prevail. It is a clash of civilizations, religions and ideas much like other great clashes in history (including Rome vs. Carthage, Allies vs. Nazis, Moors vs. Europe, Huns vs. Europe, Greece vs. Persia).

The United States will bear most of the burden.

Unfortunately, this means most of the casualties and most of the costs. Allies are great but most prefer the free ride when available. Part of this burden will be the ugly words heaped upon us by members of the international community. But I prefer ugly words any day to bombs and homicide attackers.

We should choose our friends carefully.

If a nation is not with us then they are against us. In the long run, it is that simple. I would be willing to see the creation a formal list of national friends designated with some kind of meaningful “most favored nation” status. Anyone not listed as a friend would never get the benefits of this designation and would be considered irrelevant at best and an enemy otherwise.

We should disregard the feelings and protests of our enemies.

In fighting an enemy who hides behind women and children to attack us, it is sometimes hard to pursue necessary actions to protect our troops without feeling guilty of doing wrong. In these cases, while always trying to limit collateral damage, we must protect ourselves first and let the murderous results of our enemy’s decisions to use human shields and other despicable actions fall on them. In these cases it is not our fault if civilians die. Their blood is on their government’s hands and we have to disregard the outcry and press on to complete the mission and win the war.

We should formally choose sides in the Middle East.

What Middle Eastern nation has been our best friend and ally for decades? What Middle Eastern nation has never been a threat to our security? What Middle Eastern nation is democratically elected, protects minority viewpoints and rights (including freedom of religion), respects women, and seeks to live in peace with its neighbors? Only Israel fully fits this description. Thus, in any Israeli/Arab conflict, we should side with our friend and provide aid as needed. We should not meddle and hold them back just as we don’t like for others to hold us back in our pursuit of our enemies. Joint actions, including military ones, should be considered viable options when in our mutual best interests. Of course our hand of friendship should extend to any other nation who will live peacefully with us and Israel.

All options are on the table, including the nuclear option.

In dealing with rogue nations we should never rule out military force, never set arbitrary timetables, never broadcast our plans to the enemy, and never rule out using our trump card — nuclear weapons. We must follow through on threats. Hostile acts should be dealt with swiftly and decisively and in proportion to the severity of the crime. The taking of Americans as hostages should result in an ultimatum for their immediate safe return and swift military action. Punishment via military action could include bombing vital factories and industrial facilities. If hostages are harmed or killed the actions would be far more sweeping.

We need a strong leader who explains why.

Think of great leaders of the past who persevered through dark and difficult days — George Washington at Valley Forge, Winston Churchill who promised “blood, toil, tears, and sweat” in the fight against Nazi Germany, and the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae. A people who knows who they are, why they fight, what the stakes are, and why they must win is able to give more, push harder, innovate better, and persevere to see the victory at the end. We must never forget why we must fight. Yes, some of us will die in the fight, but we will all die if we don’t fight.

So I pray that we have the strength, resolve, courage, and wherewithal to persevere to the victorious end. There is no doubt in my mind that we can win. My only fear is that we could lose hope or give up along the way, postpone our victory and let our enemies live to fight another day — a day in which they might prevail.

Today I had the chance to participate in a very interesting teleconference sponsored by The Israel Project with former Israeli Ambassador to the U.N. Dore Gold. Amb. Gold was Israel’s 11th ambassador to the United Nations (1997-1999) and is a leading expert on the Middle East and U.S. foreign policy. Amb. Gold is currently president of Israel’s Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA).

The threat posed by Iran was the dominant topic of Abm. Gold’s remarks. He made several main points including:

• Iran is attempting to project it’s power over the Middle East, Europe and ultimately beyond to directly confront the United States.
• Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad should be held accountable for promoting genocide in threatening to “wipe Israel off the map.”
• Sunni Arab states now face a clear threat from Iran — with the increase of Sunni power in Iraq and the direct and indirect influence of Iran (using proxy groups), there is now a “Shiite crecent” emerging that threatens Jordan and other Sunni nations.
• With Shiites in Iraq and the Taliban in Afganistan no longer threatening Iran, they can now pour the majority of their military budget into missile programs, weapons of mass destruction, and their navy.
• Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is part of an Islamic cult actively trying to accelerate the “end of days” by ushering in an apocalyptic moment.
• Stabilization of the Middle East requires the neutralization of radical Islam — Iran is the major source of instability in the region.
• Israel must maintain defensible borders — especially in the Jordan Valley where a pullout would be disastrous for the region.

Amb. Gold was foreign policy advisor to former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and is a two-time New York Times best-selling author. Amb. Gold also served as an advisor to former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and was a member of the Israeli delegation at the 1998 Wye River negotiations between Israel and the PLO. In 1991, he was an advisor to the Israeli delegation to the Madrid Peace Conference.

Vice President Cheney recently described Iran as fishing in troubled waters. Everyday new revelations seem to support this assertion. Over the weekend additional information on mass-produced “explosively formed penetrators” (EFPs) was released that seem to show that a direct link of support is being provided to insurgents in Iraq from high-ranking officials in the Iranian government. (And I’ve said nothing about all the “wipe Israel off the map” Iranian retoric and their nuclear doublespeak.)

If these allegations are proven and it is indeed found that Iranian actions are leading to the death of American troops then what should be done, I ask? Is our government obligated to protect our troops from other enemies as well? By all means, yes.

I believe there is a direct link between Iran and the insurgency in Iraq. Any nation who seems to make “death to America” their national moto is probably actively looking for ways to kill Americans both now and in the future. I feel these actions are acts of war that must be addressed before more Americans die at their hands.

I am glad the President has sent another carrier group (the USS John Stennis) to the region. As a reported by British news sources (The Guardian, 2/10), there are other preparations (including more Patriot missiles and minesweepers sent to the region) being undertaken that could indicate President Bush is preparing for a possible military confrontation. (I have zero confidence in a diplomatic solution under Iran’s current leadership.)

It is encouraging to see a President who does his Constitutional job and protects our interests and our troops in harms way by providing more resources for their defense. It stands in stark contrast to another President who almost 30 years ago seriously dropped the ball on Iran, a grave shortcoming which made these events possible today. President Carter’s weekness at that crucial time emboldened our enemies to later attempt multiple attacks that ultimately brought us into this War now.

Let us be bold now and address the needs at hand before they grow into a radioactive mushroom cloud delivered by an Iranian missile.