How is it that we have been fighting this war on terror for almost five years and there are still people who don’t know what we are fighting for? They don’t understand who the enemy is. They don’t understand what’s at stake. They don’t understand what our mission is. They don’t understand how this war can possibly be won. Here we are in a major conflict with over 100,000 troops involved and the American people are not aligned with the mission, nor fully understand President Bush’s strategy.

My objective in this article is to take a stab at trying to explain the context of the war, the President’s strategy to date and ideas on how the President can unite the country and the rest of the free world to support this critical mission.

From a historical perspective, there is similarity between this war and the Cold War as it pertains to the presidents who were in office at the time. The Cold War had been going on for decades, when along came President Reagan. He recognized the threat of the Soviet Union and had the foresight to understand how to defeat them. He consistently stood up to the rival superpower, walked away from negotiation summits without agreements and even referred to them as the “Evil Empire”. He knew that victory would not be obtained by backing down and signing treaties that neutered our military capabilities. He fully believed in “peace through strength”. Many in our country were appalled at this approach and thought he was triggering a mutually-assured destruction (MAD). Instead of backing down from the pressure of the international community and the dissenters at home, he pursued his goal of bringing communism to its knees through a build-up of nuclear and economic strength.

Today, we have world terrorism that has also been going on for decades. When President Bush came to office, he also had a visionary perspective on the war and how significant the stakes were for our country and the world. In the face of dissenting world opinion and from citizens at home, he has pursued his vision that terrorism needs to be defeated to preserve peace in the world. His objective has been to eliminate key terrorist regimes and give those countries the opportunity for democracies. He believes in “peace through freedom.”

It took President Reagan almost a decade to win the Cold War and he did it without having to use military force. In contrast, this war will continue to require extensive military involvement and it could take much longer to declare victory.

President Bush has taken the right steps so far with the military action in Afghanistan and Iraq and the follow-on efforts that are helping those citizens establish the foundations for democratic governments. However, the President has not been able to effectively communicate the overall goal and strategy in a way that would bring together fellow Americans and rest of the free world. Because of that, he has found himself not only battling terrorists abroad, but also battling in a war of words with the political opposition at home and against world opinion. This is continuing to undermine his efforts and provide support for the enemy. In his final two years in office, President Bush needs to take action and make a compelling and clear case for the war, outlining a comprehensive strategy and getting the broad commitment our country will require to overcome world terrorism.

The World War

Terrorism has been going on for decades, beginning with the attacks on Israel following their statehood designation in 1948. For the United States, our involvement in the war started with the kidnapping of Americans in Iran by the Ayatollah Kohmeni in 1979. Since then, we have had our citizens and soldiers attacked numerous times, both within our borders and overseas. It really had been a one-sided war for the terrorists until September 11, 2001. Prior to 9/11, all we did to respond to the terrorist attacks was simple retaliation against the terrorists with targeted bombings. We didn’t declare war against them, even though war had been declared on us (jihad). This has now evolved into a world war with several other countries having already been terrorized including England, Spain and India. Others countries will likely be targets in the near future. There are also multiple enemies involved, including terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and sovereign countries such as Iran, Iraq and North Korea (The President’s “Axis of Evil”). Most are founded on a tyrannical, fundamentalist interpretation of Islam (Islamo-fascism) that seeks to dominate the world through elimination of all non-followers (infidels). Their battle plan is to use terror to accomplish this. Dying for the cause is considered the ultimate personal victory. The war is not about territorial disputes that can be resolved through negotiated settlements, unless you consider wiping Israel off the map as a “territorial dispute”. It is also not the case that one person’s “terrorist” is another person’s “freedom fighter”. Terrorists don’t want freedom at all. They want to impose their warped religious ideology on everyone and exterminate those who don’t believe. While terrorist and terrorist-supporting countries are involved, the enemy isn’t confined to specific countries and freely moves around to whatever safe haven they can find. They will even take up residence in countries they want to eliminate, posing as average citizens until such time as they are ready to attack.

Although the battles in Afghanistan and Iraq are currently being waged against Islamo-fascists, it is important to address all forms of terrorism in our war strategy. The terrorism may come based on other delusional motives such as those from a North Korean despot or even American anarchists. We could also see the day where alliances are formed between terrorists with the same goal, but driven by very different motives.

Weed Control

Terrorism is like weeds growing in a lawn of freedom. The weeds of terrorism emerge in a lawn where there are limited or non-existent grasses of freedom. They grow deep roots and choke out any remaining grasses. They are impossible to completely eradicate by pulling them out one-by-one. Although the individual killing of weeds is useful and necessary, the best long-term solution is to spread the seeds of freedom and democracy so that the weeds have nowhere to grow. Helping key terrorist-supporting countries, like Afghanistan and Iraq, become democracies will make it much more difficult for terrorists to find available soil to grow roots. If you have any doubt that democracy is our best weapon against terrorism, look at how desperately the terrorists are trying to turn back the fledging democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq. They know that when people have freedom they will not tolerate terrorist weeds taking root among them. Getting Afghanistan and Iraq to the point where they are self-supporting democracies would be a huge blow to the terrorist cause. It is also no coincidence that the United States has not experienced another major terrorist attack since 9/11. Terrorist resources have been putting their efforts into turning back the Afghanistan and Iraq democracies and haven’t been able to organize another major attack.

The Iraq Connection

When President Bush took office in 2001, he understood that we were in a terrorist war, based on all the previous attacks that occurred over the past twenty plus years. He realized that we would eventually need to take on the terrorism in a proactive way. He knew that we needed to get them before they got us again. 9/11 was the “Pearl Harbor” that he used to finally engage the war on terror.

Many Americans expected that the 9/11 response would only be a tit-for-tat retaliation against mastermind Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda organization. Nearly everyone was supportive of the President when he sent troops into Afghanistan to hunt down bin Laden. When the President ordered the invasion of Iraq, many people were now confused on what the mission was all about. The President chose to make the case for it by tying it to the United Nations resolution non-compliance, along with alleged Al Qaeda links to Iraq. In hindsight, he would have been better served to make the case that Iraq was just the next battlefront in the war on terror. What he should have done was to explain the potential impacts of Islamo-fascism domination in the coming years that, if left unchecked, would be a major threat to world peace. He needed to relate our reasons for Iraq to future scenarios and implications, instead of trying to tie them to the direct justifications like the potential threat of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) or the linkages to the 9/11 attack. If we hadn’t invaded Iraq, they would likely have re-built their WMD and be closer to having, and being able to use, nuclear weaponry. We would also have likely experienced another 9/11 attack or two within our borders. The former dictator of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, was definitely a terrorist leader and a key enemy in this world war. He has paid off families of homicide bombers for their killing of Israelis. He has maimed and murdered citizens of his own country. He invaded a neighboring country in 1991. He used chemical weapons to exterminate his own citizens and has demonstrated the use missile technology. He was a growing threat until the President and an international collection of military troops finally removed him from power. The objective of the United Nations resolutions put forth following the Gulf War was to disarm Iraq and to verify that disarmament through the use of weapons inspections. Unfortunately, Saddam kept enough control on the inspections and was able to move and hide the evidence from the inspectors. The President used this non-compliance as justification to initiate the invasion. However, the preceding months of warnings leading up to the invasion gave Saddam additional time to hide or destroy the weapons. If Saddam really didn’t have WMD, as many people still believe, why he didn’t give the inspectors full access to the country and comply with the United Nations resolutions, thus avoiding the invasion? He surely realized, based on the Gulf War, that the U.S. was very willing and capable of taking military action against his country. Even if he thought this was a bluff, he could have called it off right after the bombing started, assuming he had nothing to hide. He realized that he was being hampered by the United Nations and the United States in his efforts to build up his WMD arsenal and would never be able move forward with his grand terrorist schemes until he got them off his back. What he decided to do was to continue to provoke the U.S. into attacking him on the basis of him still having the WMD. In preparation, he would destroy or hide evidence of a WMD program. His strategy was to let us invade Iraq based on WMD, find none and get world opinion turned against us. Once the invasion was over, he could go back to building up the WMD, knowing he would then not have the United Nations or the United States officially monitoring him. He also knew that world opinion would be strong enough to hold the United States back from invading a second time. That would give him enough time to re-build the WMD program and likely get nuclear weapon technology. Once he had that, then he knew that he would have the upper hand because it would be too risky for us to invade at that point, since we would fear his use of a nuclear weapon against us or his neighbors. So his plan was to survive the invasion and then take control of the country again after the invasion force had left. That is why he was hiding in a hole when we eventually found him and he did not offer up a fight nor kill himself as a martyr. Unfortunately for him, he didn’t plan on President Bush, in conjunction with the Iraqi people, deciding to replace his dictatorship with a democratic form of government. The President had this vision all along, as an integral part of this world war, where grasses of freedom needed to replace the weeds of terrorism in the world. He was driven to move forward with this regardless of what WMD they actually found. Stopping the spread of Islamo-fascism through freedom and democracy is the long term goal. That’s why it is not critical to get Osama bin Laden. He is just one weed that will be replaced by another when he’s dead. Afghanistan and Iraq are currently growing the grasses of freedom, but the lawn is not thick and lush yet, so we must continue helping them pull out the stubborn weeds that are restraining their democracies.

A Course of Action for America

Our country’s role in this war requires more than just sending our troops to help countries fight for freedom. We need the support of all Americans, similar to what the country had during World War II when the men all enlisted in the military and the women replaced them in the factories. Almost everyone supported the war in whatever way they could. There was a national commitment. They had to protect the country from another attack (Pearl Harbor) and some civil liberties were taken away (Japanese internment) to support the war effort. This world war requires similar support and sacrifices.

A key to prevailing in this type of war is getting everyone united and committed behind the effort. Unfortunately, without the President having made a convincing case for this world war, the country has not been united. Iraq is being looked at as “Bush’s War” or an illegal war or as an unjustified attack on an innocent country. During this time, there have been many critics who have been attacking the President’s war strategy, even to the point of aiding and abetting the enemy by disclosing secret government information on tactics used to fight the war. However, the President is continuing to successfully drive towards his goal, despite having only about one-third of the country supporting him and some in the other two-thirds that are actually undermining him and his efforts in various ways. But, our nation can’t keep going on like this and expect to achieve long-term victory and lasting peace. The President needs to get fellow citizens involved in supporting and helping to fight the war. Here are some actions that can be taken.

The President should start by convening a special session of Congress that would be used to set up a framework or war pact for this president, and future presidents, to prosecute the war. The executive and judicial branches of government should also be involved in designing this framework. The overall objective of this session would be to develop an approach to the war that would achieve the buy-in and support from all branches of government. The strategic framework should address the following:

1. Create a formal declaration of war against the terrorists stating that the U.S. government and citizens are committed to defeating the enemy and will take full action as necessary to protect the country and world freedom. The declaration would describe our enemy and what is at stake for our country. It should be drafted by Congress, voted on and signed by the President. This is important to establish complete government commitment to the fact that we are in a world war and are committed to winning it. It will serve as a mission statement from which all Americans will understand our purpose, objectives and the resolve required in this fight for freedom and allow us to unite around it.

2. Clarify the war powers that a president has, as Commander-in-Chief, to send troops overseas to battle against terrorists and to support the development of democracies. This would not be something that Congress would vote on nor that the Supreme Court would decide. The objective for the President would be to present the scope and extent of how he, as Commander-in-Chief, plans to use the war powers of his position to fight the war and obtain support for the concepts from the other two branches. This is important so that people are not continually challenging the president’s authority in his decisions on when, and where, to deploy troops. It would also set a precedent for future presidents that assume office during war time.

3. Establish a war-time only changing of current law, and creation of new law, to allow a president more freedom to pursue intelligence information on terrorists, and terrorist activity, through access to phone records, financial transactions, Internet communications, travel records, etc. This is a critical weapon necessary to stop attacks and weed out the terrorists. Here, Congress and the Supreme Court would review current law and ensure that the government has necessary authority to obtain this information on terrorists. Interpretation of current laws would be documented and, possibly, new laws would be enacted to support the war efforts. However, to restrict the use of this information only for the purpose of this war, it would also establish clear legal penalties for any abuse of that information against innocent citizens by the President or any others who have access to it. Additionally, for those who publicly leak or publish any details about these terrorist intelligence programs, they should be charged with treason and prosecuted fully.

4. Discuss rules of engagement for the war regarding the detainment and treatment of prisoners, interrogation techniques, the use of nuclear options, attacking the enemy with civilian lives at risks (e.g., Are we prepared to shoot down a hijacked plane with American civilians aboard if it is a threat to kill a greater number of American lives in a kamikaze attack?), etc. The format for this should be a private, closed door discussion between the President, top military leaders, a selected bipartisan group of congressional members and Supreme Court justices. Obviously, this information would benefit our enemies if they knew it and should be classified as top secret. The discussion should involve laying out all potential scenarios pertaining to the handling of various types of terrorist attacks, interrogating and detaining prisoners, use of military tribunals and the possible uses of various offensive initiatives against the enemy. Although these decisions are the primary responsibility of the Commander-in-Chief, getting feedback while going through these potential scenarios would provide a base of understanding that the President could use when confronted with the real situations that might occur. Even though the American people will not see this information published, they can at least feel comfortable that their president has consulted with Congress and the Supreme Court on the issue. This discussion should take place at least annually during wartime so that new scenarios and actions can be included.

5. Implement a plan to upgrade and expand the military. Defending our country is job #1 for the federal government and we need to make sure we have the most capable and well-equipped fighting force in the world. With a world war that may last for decades, we need to focus on ways to better equip our military personnel and increase our troop levels. There needs to be a review of the pay scales, benefits, etc. for military personnel. Our troops, especially the combat forces, need to be paid very well. I don’t know what the wage levels should be specifically, but combat troops should be paid at least as much as members of Congress and probably more. The troops must also have the best equipment and latest technology. We need to look at ways to better entice private companies to compete for military contracts with innovative technology and equipment. The competition between these companies should provide the military with the best equipment at a reasonable price. A new annual defense budget must be proposed to support this military upgrade and expansion. Along with the upgrades, the military must put in place strategies for recruitment. A military draft is not the answer. An all-volunteer military is the best approach and the military service organizations must improve their marketing and recruitment strategies to bring in new volunteers. The government must mandate that any federally-funded secondary schools allow military recruiters to spend time on the premises to carry out their recruiting activities.
Another mandate should include daily recital of the Pledge of Allegiance at the elementary schools. The terrorists currently indoctrinate young children to their cause in schools. While I don’t agree with any kind of forced indoctrination, there is no reason why we can’t make sure that schools teach American children about the history of the war and why our involvement is necessary, and just, to protect our freedoms at home and around the world. We need to make sure that we have future generations of patriots to deal with the major issues they will be faced with. Rallies are a good way to motivate existing and potential troops. Rallies should be held for troops just before they ship out for major deployments and as a way to welcome them home. It gives other citizens the opportunity to show their appreciation for the work that the military is doing. Overall, we need to put in place actions like these to increase the country’s patriotism and respect for the troops who are protecting our freedom. Citizens should be proud to serve and proud of those who do serve.

6. Lay out a comprehensive plan for Homeland Security including protection for potential terrorist targets, border fencing and patrol, airline and other transportation security measures, compliance with immigration laws, setting up an electronic data clearinghouse for citizen tips and information on suspected terrorist activities, establishing terrorist surveillance units within each of the major police forces across the country, accelerating the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) and protecting our national interests from the leaking or publishing of classified government secrets. It is critical that the citizens within our borders are provided the best protections that we can afford. Prime high-risk targets such as nuclear power plants, missile bases, landmarks, dense population areas, food and water supplies, medical facilities and transportation infrastructures need to be given extra protection due to the catastrophic results that would result if they were successfully attacked. The borders need to be secured much more than they are now. We need fences and on the northern and southern boundaries of the continental United States. We also need surveillance and patrols along the east and west coasts, along with high security protections at every port. Alaska and Hawaii will need some protections for their water and land borders. At key border locations, we will need to install anti-missile batteries to help stop missiles that may be launched at us from other countries. The key long-term solution to attacks from the air will be SDI. We need to fund that program to provide us with a needed defense system that can protect us and our allies from missiles with conventional and nuclear warheads. It may never be a fool-proof defense, but any missiles that can be stopped make it worth the effort to build it. Also, the technology advances that we obtain in developing this defensive shield may be able to be leveraged to create some new offensive weaponry that could enhance our chances of defeating the enemy. We need to have a concerted effort on many fronts to find and stop the enemy within. We already know that we have terrorist weeds growing in our freedom lawn. Despite all efforts to secure our borders, there will be more enemies who will infiltrate the country. Also, there may be born and bred Americans who, for whatever reasons, decide to go to the dark side and become terrorists. To address this, we need to “deputize’ all Americans so they will be alert to potential terrorists and their activities. This involves creating an electronic clearinghouse where any citizen can provide tips and information on possible threats our country. The clearinghouse would be accessible through the local police department, by mail, phones and the Internet. As with a 9-1-1 call, abuse of the clearinghouse would be treated seriously and result in severe penalties. Also, all police departments of major cities should have special terrorist units that are specially trained to seek out and deal with terrorist activity. The extended coverage that would be provided through an interconnected network of the National Guard, police organizations and deputized citizens will give us the best chance of preventing terrorist attacks within our borders.

7. Along with deputizing all citizens, we should also set up a national service program for “civilian soldiers” to contribute their time and efforts to winning the war. This would be an option for those who do not want to, or are too old, to serve in the military. This could be an option for high school graduates that don’t want to go into military service, attend college or get a job right away, but want to spend a year or more serving their country. Of course, this would be an option for anybody, young or old, to do something for the nation that has given them so much. There would potentially be a long list of volunteer roles that would be coordinated by the federal, state and local governments. Here are some proposed volunteer options that might be available to those who want to serve:

- Help build the fences along the borders

- Join the National Guard or Coast Guard

- Work with computer technology in data mining efforts to track and analyze terrorist information and activities

- Take on an assignment working with the terrorist surveillance unit of a local police force

- Be part of security detail at a major terrorist target site (nuclear power plant, stadium, shopping mall, water processing facility, etc.)

- Organize and participate in an ongoing “neighborhood watch”.

- Organize rallies and “welcome home” events for military personnel who are shipping out or returning home from combat duty.

An additional thought would be to have identified illegal aliens spend a year or two helping construct the fences as restitution for coming to this country illegally. It seems to me like a very fitting punishment for the crime. The building of the border fences would also be a great volunteer opportunity for businesses and other organizations to sponsor. Along with the current “Habitat for Humanity” cause, you would also have “Fences for Freedom”. Work crews from around the country could travel to the borders and spend a day, a week or whatever and contribute their time to building the fences.

8. To further motivate volunteers to support the war, a supplemental program to add to an individual’s Social Security benefits could be set up. It was be based on a credit system for hours that people work in support of the war. Military service personnel, civilian soldiers, legislators, Homeland Security employees and other war service volunteers would be eligible. Credit values would be worth more for some work and less for other others and would be reset each year depending on the war needs (e.g. credit value for military service during heightened fighting would be greater than the credit value for other volunteer roles). This might prove to be a good eventual replacement plan for Social Security where a person’s war service credits could be supplemented with required income donations and additional voluntary amounts to provide them with their overall retirement income within a personal account. I believe that those who serve their country should be compensated in a way that allows them to enjoy the fruits of their efforts later in life. In conjunction with getting more volunteer time from citizens, we also need to modify income tax laws to allow tax deductions for taxpayers who want to contribute to the war effort with money, investments, donations, etc. The war will require a large amount of funding, so setting it up so taxpayers can contribute directly to the cause is important and necessary.

9. Another key action needed in this special session is to pass a law setting term limits for Congress. I recommend 5 terms (10 years) for a representative and 2 terms (12 years) for a senator. This is important to ensure that we get the desired behavior to make laws in the best interest of the country, especially during critical times of war. Currently, Congress has a 92% re-election rate, which is way too high in my opinion. We have legislators who have been there for decades and their main focus has been keeping themselves in office through whatever means necessary. And those efforts to retain their powerful positions have usurped their motivation to serve the country. The current lack of term limits in the legislature drives these unproductive and negative behaviors. The power culture on Capital Hill makes it ripe for bribery and other abuses of power. We need legislators to go to Washington knowing that they have a limited time there and will need to go back home and live with the laws they enacted. We want people with fresh ideas that are committed to serving the nation and not career politicians whose main goal is to get federal pork for their state and win reelection. There will be key legislative decisions that need to be made during wartime, including the funding of our military and Homeland Security. We need politicians who are there making those decisions based on what’s best for the country, not ones who are there to satisfy their own personal ambitions. It’s what the founding fathers intended and we need to get back to it at this critical time in our history. The Executive branch has term limits and the Legislative branch needs to follow that model. It will be a tough sell on both sides of the aisle, but there hopefully will be enough true patriots in Congress who can push it through based on what is at stake for the future.

10. The last step would be to put in place a standard national poll. If we are going to mobilize the country, then we need have a consistent way to measure how successful these efforts are. The poll should be a single key question worded something like this, “Do you support your country’s efforts in the war against terrorism?” The answers would be Yes, No or Not Sure. This poll would be a monthly “temperature check” for the nation to continually monitor how supportive the citizens are with the ongoing war efforts. In addition to the single question, each respondent would be given the opportunity provide additional feedback in the form of some open-ended questions about the country’s war strategy: What should the country keep doing? What should the country stop doing? What should the country start doing? The poll results and feedback would be provided back to our national leaders so that they can adjust strategy and tactics based on the “voice of the people”. The support of the American people is paramount to our country’s success in this endeavor and must be sought out and paid attention to.

Another important support need for the war within our country is for American Muslim leaders to draw a distinct line between the Islamo-fascism practiced by the terrorists and the more peaceful version of Islam. Mosques across this country will then need to identify which form of Islam they practice. Muslim leaders must be outspoken in describing how their interpretation of Islam can co-exist peacefully within the American culture and under a democratic government. They must speak out forcefully against Islamo-fascism and everything it stands for. Islamic institutions and places of worship that don’t align themselves with the peaceful interpretation of Islam will be under extra scrutiny and observation as potential terrorist cells.

The American press and other media formats (talk radio, web logs, etc.) have an opportunity to do their part to support the war. There is no such thing as a totally objective press. All of the press organizations publish news with various biases. Some even purposely “spin” the news to support their position on a topic, although they would be loath to admit it. There has been a lot of negative spin from the press on this war, mostly because the press is dominated by liberals and our current president is a conservative. While some continue to have this arrogant opinion that they are serving the “greater good”, their efforts have, at times, contributed directly to supporting our enemies during this war. The constant battering of the President’s war efforts have helped to get some of the American public to turn their support away from the President and the military mission. And the recent publishing of classified government secrets is nothing short of treason. I’m not implying that the press should only publish news that supports our country’s war effort. However, it is an opportunity for them to put aside their political differences and emphasize the positive results of our war efforts. Each news organization needs to make their decision. Are they are going to focus on the news supporting the war effort or focus on the news that undermines it. Dissenting opinions are a core part of our democracy, but in time of war we also need all American institutions to do their part to support the country when our freedoms are being challenged. The press and media institutions can do a lot to support our nation in this war on terrorism, but are at risk of directly supporting our enemy when they publish articles that undermine our country’s war efforts. Hopefully, most patriotic citizens will not support media organizations that continually undermine their country’s war efforts.

Building International Alliances

Getting the American citizens united and committed is the first step. The next step is to unite our allies. Although the United States is the world’s only “superpower”, we can’t expect that we can unilaterally be successful in international issues without support from our allies. Here is an approach to getting alignment with the rest of the free world in this war on terrorism:

We should use the United Nations as a forum to get alliances with the other countries that want to join our side in the war against terrorism. I am no fan of the United Nations for anything other than its humanitarian work, but this could be an opportunity for it to be useful. The United States should craft a resolution for this war and get a commitment from all the countries who will become our allies in the fight for world freedom. This will mark a clear “line in the sand” of countries that will fight and support the war against terrorism and those who will not. Neutrality is not an option here. As the President said after 9/11, “You are either with us or you are with the terrorists.” This resolution would not just be a piece of paper, but it would be an actionable pact between allied nations that are committed and willing take action against the terrorists through a united front. Likely allies include England, Israel, Australia, Canada, India, Japan and most other democracies in the world. It would force all countries to declare what side they are on in this next world war.

Once the countries have taken sides and the allies have made their commitment to each other, they would then convene to develop common goals and methods for prosecuting the war:

1. Develop an overall war strategy and objectives. The allies would plan and strategize on how they will work together effectively to weed out the enemy and spread freedom throughout the world. This would be a multi-national plan that would leverage the strengths of each nation and lay out a long-term strategy to end world terrorism.

2. Set expectations for what each country is willing to contribute to the cause regarding their troop capacity, weaponry and deployment capabilities. We need to leverage the best that each country can provide.

3. Determine what, and how, intelligence about the enemy will be shared. The allies would need to set up a secure network to share information that could help them defend themselves from planned attacks and that also could be used offensively to eradicate terrorist leaders and cells. Additionally, they should put large bounties on the heads of all known terrorist leaders to entice people to come forward with information regarding their whereabouts.

4. Replace the Geneva Convention with new policies regarding the imprisonment and treatment of prisoners, along with agreed upon interrogation techniques. The Geneva Convention was for different kind of war in a different time and was based on all sides agreeing to it. Our enemy does not, and will not, agree to any rules regarding its treatment of prisoners. It has already shown that it will torture and murder prisoners. I fully understand that we have high moral values (as opposed to the terrorists who have none) and we would not stoop to the torture and murder used by them. However, short of maiming or killing people, we need leeway and flexibility to find and use interrogation techniques that will draw out critical intelligence from our prisoners. The allies will also need to determine where they will set up prisoner of war facilities and policies for prisoner treatment. One thing we should not provide for any prisoners is a copy of the Koran. The instructions in the Koran are what the Islamo-fascists use to drive the terrorism we are fighting against. Does it make any sense to hand them a copy of their “marching orders” when we capture them?

5. Determine the rules of engagement where innocent civilians are being used as human shields. This is a well-known tactic of the terrorists to hide themselves and their weapons within civilian locations and facilities. The allies need to have guidelines for insuring that minimum civilian casualties result from their attacks, but recognize that this is an unfortunate, but realistic, result of this kind of war. They also need to determine answers to questions about negotiating with terrorists (e.g., prisoner exchanges) and how they will deal with those scenarios. Finally, to what extent will nuclear weapons be used in this war? Are there scenarios when their use will be considered? The allies must consider the parameters around when a nuclear option would be used and how the decision would be made.

6. Determine the use of economic sanctions against countries with terrorist regimes and others who support terrorism. The allies can find ways, along with military options, to put the squeeze on terrorist countries through embargos, sealing of bank assets and other financial attack strategies. Just as weeds need water to grow, terrorists need money to carry out their attacks. Going after their money supply is an effective tactic to use in conjunction with military force.

7. Make plans for supporting democracies and reconstructing nations where terrorist regimes are eliminated through allied military force. The allies will need to be prepared to keep troops deployed in those countries until they are self-sustaining. There will also be the need to provide humanitarian aid and rebuild infrastructure.

Consequences of Retreat

If we pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, go into an isolationist shell and simply try to resist future attacks on our homeland, what would the world situation become in the next decade? First of all, Afghanistan and Iraq would likely lose their democracies and revert back to terrorist regimes. Iran and North Korea would enhance and expand their nuclear weapons capabilities. Terrorist organizations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Lebanon would probably be able to get access to Iran’s nuclear weaponry. Once they have nuclear WMD, it would be too late for the U.S. military to attack the terrorists. There would be too much risk that the terrorists would retaliate by hitting the United States, or one of our allies, with a nuclear bomb. Other Middle East nations such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait would likely end up being controlled by terrorist organizations. Israel would then be a sitting duck among all the terrorist nations of the Middle East. It wouldn’t take long before the terrorists would use the WMD to complete their goal of eliminating Israel. Terrorist control of the entire Middle East would then provide them with too much geographical area for us to attack conventionally or with nuclear weapons. The enemy would then be able to train and set up operations unabated in the center of the world. From there they could effectively continue their attacks on the U.S. and other democracies who they want to eliminate. Also, having control of a significant share of the world’s oil supply would give them additional leverage against their enemies. Throw in the mix a nuclear-armed country like North Korea and the world could be put on the brink of a huge man-made disaster. If the U.S. did respond at some later point with nuclear weapons, Armageddon and a nuclear holocaust would likely result…

Your Vote

The upcoming elections from 2006 through 2008 are critical to our country’s successful defense of freedom. This world war on terrorism is the primary issue voters should base their decisions on. We need leaders in Congress and a president who understand what is at stake in this war and are committed to winning it. We have been fortunate that the President we elected the past two terms had the vision of what was at stake and took some bold military actions. Despite the constant battery from the “left” and low approval ratings, the President has remained steadfast in his commitment to protect the freedoms being challenged by terrorism. For our next president, we need a Commander-in-Chief who can continue to successfully lead our military in the operations that the war will require. Additionally, we need a leader who can mobilize the citizenry to engage in active support for the war efforts. Winning the war will take much more than military action – all Americans must to their part. The next president must be able to provide the leadership that will motivate citizen involvement and support. During the election campaigns, ask congressional and presidential candidates about their positions on the war and what ideas they have for winning it. Ask them if they support term limits for Congress and if they will work to pass legislation to make it law. The next set of government leaders will have a crucial responsibility in determining our country’s fate and you and I, the voters, will make the decisions on which leaders those will be. Do your homework on the candidates so you can make the “right” choices!

The future fate of our country is upon us. Do we pull back now and only deal with the terrorist weeds in our own lawn or do we take a leadership role to control the weeds worldwide and help sow the grasses of freedom? The peace and security of the free world are at stake. This President needs to act soon to unify the country and our allies against the common enemy in this war on terror. The free world must be unified and committed for any reasonable hope of finding a lasting peace.