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.

After being subjected to years of fraudulent “voter” registrations (more, more and more) conducted by radical left-wing groups like ACORN, Americans are now forced to take additional steps to protect the integrity of our electoral process. However, with the 2008 Presidential election just three weeks away there is simply not enough time to check and validate voter rolls sufficiently to purge them of all deceased people, duplicate names, fictitious persons (ACORN attempted to register Mickey Mouse in Florida this summer) and errors that have in many cases been deliberately injected into our system by those who want to throw the election for radicals like Barack Obama (who is closely associated with ACORN).

Fortunately, there is a simple but effective measure that would go a long way in protecting the integrity of our election process and ensure the one person one vote principle is honored. As Americans, we need to borrow an innovation used successfully in recent elections in Iraq, Afghanistan and several other nations. We need to employ election ink.

Election ink is a semi-permanent dye or stain that is applied to a finger or thumb after voting to prevent electoral fraud, namely double voting. The process is quick, inexpensive and almost impossible to circumvent. While requiring election ink would do nothing to prevent fraudulent and illegal voters from casting ballots in the first place, It would effectively prevent illegal multiple votes within or across electoral districts.

It’s a shame that such a step is needed within the United States; however, we must act defensively because efforts are underway to stuff our ballot boxes with fraudulent “votes” and sway the election against the will of the people.  We must protect the integrity of our elections or the results will be held in suspicion. Frankly, given the absence of meaningful voter ID requirements, we should have adopted election ink years ago in my opinion.

Please join me in demanding that election ink be required for all voters on November 4th.

[Please see the Florida voter registration form for Mickey Mouse below. It had an ACORN stamp on it.]

The New York Post reported today that during his July trip to Baghdad, Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama, while “campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq . . . tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.” This report, by Amir Taheri, cites Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari as the source of this accusation.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

In discussing Obama’s position, Taheri writes:

Though Obama claims the US presence is “illegal,” he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the “weakened Bush administration,” Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.

Such an extension is due in December of 2008 and is likely to be granted anyway according to Taheri. Taheri also writes that Obama tried to persuade U.S. commanders including Gen. David Petraeus to suggest a “realistic withdrawal date.” Taheri explains that a delay in negotiating a troop agreement would be significant given the U.S. and Iraqi election timelines that would have to be taken into consideration.

Towards the end of his report, Taheri writes:

Obama has given Iraqis the impression that he doesn’t want Iraq to appear anything like a success, let alone a victory, for America. The reason? He fears that the perception of US victory there might revive the Bush Doctrine of “pre-emptive” war – that is, removing a threat before it strikes at America.

Despite some usual equivocations on the subject, Obama rejects pre-emption as a legitimate form of self-defense. To be credible, his foreign-policy philosophy requires Iraq to be seen as a failure, a disaster, a quagmire, a pig with lipstick or any of the other apocalyptic adjectives used by the American defeat industry in the past five years.

Obama’s consistant anti-war stance has made victory more difficult for our forces to achieve. As Taheri correctly notes in his report and most left-leaning commentators and politicians conveniently ignore, this war is not an “illegal war.” While I maintain that the United States has a duty to protect Americans even under circumstances that could require unilateral or pre-emptive actions, there is a UN mandate that provides a legal framework for coalition involvement in Iraq. Obama’s statements are damaging and muddying the waters. They are hurting American efforts to provide security for the Iraqi people.

Even more troubling to me is the way Obama is treating American forces and our national security. His statements demanding a calendar date to end this war gives terrorists/insurgents a specific time they view as our surrender date. If they can just hold out past that date they will win and they know that. That knowledge brings encouragement to them which means Obama’s statements are helping the enemy strengthen their resolve and hope of living to kill another day.

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.

It seems that Americans are very impatient when it comes to anything. Take Iraq for example. We expect the Iraqi people to quickly develop a representative government even thought they have no history of ever experiencing such. Let’s take a few moments and think about this in terms of our own government history.

On July 4, 1776 the American people declared their independence from the British Empire. Our first governing document, the Articles of Confederation was not fully ratified for almost 5 years until March 1, 1781. Like Iraq, we had years of war during this time.

Even after the American War for Independence ended in 1783, the new American government struggled under a weak arrangement that had many flaws. This became very evident by the mid-1780s as more problems arose and the states squabbled and did not sufficiently support the federal government.

In a nutshell, the bulk of these problems were addressed by the Constitutional Convention that produced the United States Constitution. Adopted on September 17, 1787, it was more than a year later on March 4, 1789, that the new federal government began operating.

So with this 12+ year timeline in mind, I suggest that forming good governments takes time and, as in our case, can even experience false starts. Given their unique set of circumstances, I think it is unfair to expect the Iraqi people to do much better than we did in our beginning.

True, they have our proven model and our assistance to guide them on their journey, but it seems they don’t have a wise group of founding fathers to speed up this process. But even while we experienced a better set of circumstances than they have now, we still faced many problems that required compromise, creative solutions and much patience. In spite of monumental effort and foresight, we didn’t get everything exactly right during these formative years — even in our second governing document. However, through the brilliant amendment process built into our Constitution, we have been able to “form a more perfect union” and right many of the initial wrongs (especially slavery). The result has been more than 200 years of liberty, prosperity, and growth.

With this in mind, I suggest we maintain a long-term perspective for Iraq. In my opinion, it is premature for us to expect them to immediately experience the mature fruits of representative government from the seeds we first sowed in early 2003. Good government takes time.

Of course we should push for them to develop a government that is honest, safeguards individual rights, and provides domestic security. It would be wrong to accept anything else. Other areas beyond these basics, however, can be addressed over time. Given the ingenuity of a free people enjoying liberty for the first time, I think the quick pace of positive change that would grow in such an environment would shock many skeptics.

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.

Many, especially Democrats, are fond of saying they don’t support the War in Iraq but they do support our troops. That statement, my friend, is an oxymoron. One cannot truly support our troops when one doesn’t actually support what they are doing.

I support our troops and their mission. I too, like so many others, wish for their speedy return. But I want them to come home in glorious triumph when their job is finished and undisputed victory has been achieved. As General Douglas MacArthur stated of a previous war, there can be no substitute for victory.

As MacArthur argued then, we must act today: As a nation we must define victory and pursue it relentlessly. I am convinced this war will ultimately be won by the side who demonstrates the most resolve.

I am deeply disturbed by a majority of Democrats in Congress who persistently call for a pullout from Iraq without even mentioning victory. Where is their resolve? Where is their pursuit of victory? How are they providing for our defense with such actions? How does this honor those who already gave life and limb for this worthy cause?

As Americans, let us be bold and stand firm in this long war without wavering. Let us see it through to victory wherever it may take us. Let us pursue the enemy relentlessly so that he cannot pursue us even for a moment. Let us use every weapon in our disposal. And let us never forget to honor and support those who do the dirty work for us preserving our freedom and our very lives.

May God bless our troops and America.