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.

Embedded below is a powerful video with an inspiring message about freedom and hope from the perspective of an Iraq War veteran. It is his personal message to Senator Barack Obama on why he is supporting Senator John McCain for President.

Click here to view the embedded video.

This video has been viewed over 11 million times as of Oct. 30, 2008.

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’s time the Western world wakes up and recognizes that we are now fighting World War III. The sad truth, though, is many who should be allies are sitting on the sidelines while the axis of evil feverishly gets stronger by building weapons that could truly disrupt our lives and kill millions within seconds.

Since many barely have a clue about what’s going on, I’ll spell it out plainly. World War III is between the West (and I include Israel in this classification) and Radical Islam. The opening shots were fired in the 1970s and barely anyone noticed. Over the next decades other battles were fought and the West essentially gave ground each time. We saw the fall of Iran to radical elements, the Marine barracks attack in Beirut, the first World Trade Center bombing, the U.S.S. Cole attack, the African embassy attacks, and then 9/11. In each of these cases it was Muslim terrorists attacking Western interests. And in the case of Israel, there were too many wars and homicide bombings on their homeland, civilian populations and military to even mention at this time.

Over the past 30 years thousands of Western civilians and soldiers have died. Yet, from a historical perspective, in the grand scheme of war relatively little has been done to end these attacks for good. The American-led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq have, in my opinion, reduced the number of attacks on civilian targets by refocusing the enemy on trying to outlast the American military presence. In the case of Israel, they have enjoyed more peace while they have occupied Palestinian and Lebanese territories and personally handled security there (ridding them of terror elements).

But in reality, the bulk of these military moves are only temporary stopgap measures. The truth is we have not killed enough radicals to break their will and put fear in their hearts. And part of the reason for this oversight, in my opinion, is the restraint placed on Western military leaders by their civilian counterparts. In short, American and allied military forces are not being allowed to get all the bad guys simply because civilian leaders don’t have the stomach for the temporary backlash brought on by the carnage of war.

Why is this so? Because our leaders don’t really recognize that we are really fighting World War III. They seem to still think we can negotiate and smart-bomb our way to a clean outcome of containment since this isn’t really a “real” war like the ones against Nazi Germany and the Japanese Empire.

But if you listen to our enemies, it’s very real to them. They want to create an Islamic state in Britain, the United States and beyond. For Israel, they want to wipe them off the map and make the land uninhabitable through nuclear fallout.

Friends, it’s time to wake up and smell the coffee. We are at war. We must win. There can be no restraint and no substitute for unconditional victory. We MUST prevail or we or our children will be forced to live under the curse of sharia law. This is World War III and we must fight it with all the vigor and will that we showed as Americans in winning World War II.

So it’s time to put the world on notice and make them choose sides. We should stop pandering to so-called “moderate” Muslim governments that smile at us and then finance our enemy behind out backs. We should not allow Hugo Chavez to squander the Venezuelan people for his ego trip alliance with Iran’s madman. He should be put on notice that his days are numbered since he is allied with a terrorist on our most-wanted list. He is aiding and abetting the enemy and that makes him the enemy too.

It’s time to formally align ourselves militarily with Israel just as we have with the United Kingdom and other nations. An attack on Israel is an attack on us and vice versa. Let’s work together more closely and openly fight this fight together. It’s time for Europe to end their anti-Israel bias and think about reality. Has Israel ever attacked or even threatened them on their soil as so many radical Muslims have?

Understanding and acknowledgment that we are fighting World War III should produce the changes needed to actually win this long war. It would force us to pour more resources into the fight and let the military do what they do best and that is kill the enemy and break his things. As much as I hate collateral damage and civilian casualties, we can’t be so averse to these things that it leads the enemy to hide among civilians to achieve a safe haven. The enemy must be killed and pushed to exhaustion knowing that their only safety is in surrender and giving up this fight for good.

Let’s fight World War III like we mean it and win!

I’m extremely frustrated with most Democrats in the U.S. House and Senate right now. Their lack of funding for our troops and their insistence on setting what amounts to a timetable for surrender is just wrong.

Democrats cannot truly support our troops when then refuse to fund our military for weeks during wartime, write toothless resolutions and pass a cowardly “surrender funding” bill they know the President will veto. When most national Democrats say they support our troops they are simply lying. Just look at how they have been publicly (mis)treating and bad talking our war efforts using news media outlets at home and abroad.

And who ever heard of this ridiculous notion of setting a date certain to leave a war zone when the war is still being fought? That’s ludicrous and absurdly weak. I can think of no precedent in world history for such lame actions. It speaks volumes on their lack of resolve to protect this nation from radical Islamic terrorists.

These spineless actions by most of the Democrats in Congress, especially those in leadership and all Democratic Presidential candidates, brings me to a list of things that should never be done while at war.

• Never, ever, ever give up — study Winston Churchill if you need to learn more about doing this in the face of strong opposition.
• Never, ever, ever give your enemy anything to hope for — especially that they might actually survive to see the day you leave.
• Never, ever, ever show any weakness — stay on the offensive and overwhelm constantly and decisively.
• Never, ever, ever hold back — stand ready to crush the enemy at all times using all strategies at your disposal.
• Never, ever, ever divulge information that can be used against you — don’t publicize your strategy, your timetable, or any options that are not on the table.
• Always give your troops the best — the best support, equipment, vision, honor, and anything that helps them win.

There is no substitute for victory. Any war that we enter must be won decisively. We should not enter a war with any other intentions. Peace should be maintained through a wise strategy of building allies and stockpiling strength.

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.

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.

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.