The Associated Press reported today that an Islamic court in Somalia has banned women from swimming at the main beach in Mogadishu. So far the ban applies only to one beach, but how long before additional steps toward strict religious law are taken?

According to Sheikh Farah Ali Hussein, "We stopped women from swimming because it is against the teaching of Islam for women to mingle with men, especially while they are swimming." Now, I'll admit that I haven't read the Koran, but did Mohammad really write that coed swimming was especially egregious?

So now, in addition to a ban on watching movies and the introduction of public lashings and executions, women are restricted from escaping the African heat by swimming at the beach.

Can't wait to see what's next.

So Kim Jong-Il is sorry for his testing of a nuclear device, huh? And he promises not to conduct any more such tests.

Isn't that good news? The little dictator is caving and without any real international pressure. Is he doing this out of the goodness of his heart? Is he really sorry? Something is up and only Kim and the ChiComs know what it is.

It certainly wasn't the sanctions, which were weak and selectively enforced. It wasn't pressure from China, which fears a refugee crisis if the government in Pyongyang collapses. I suspect, though, that we will find out soon enough what the true motivation was for the sudden display of remorse.

When the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1718 on October 14, it agreed to impose economic sanctions against North Korea for testing a nuclear device earlier in the month. The resolution condemned the atomic test, demanded that the DPRK conduct no further tests or ballistic missile launches, and called upon all United Nations member states to stop the trade of various weapons systems, luxury goods, and certain technologies with North Korea.

Of course, the communist dictatorship of Kim Jong-Il immediately rejected the resolution and threatened war on nations imposing economic sanctions on the DPRK. Why the bellicose rhetoric? Because North Korea knows that the sanctions resolution is more show than actual punishment, and the provisions of Resolution 1718 will be selectively enforced.

Almost as soon as the resolution was passed, the Chinese government stated that it would not participate in the inspection of cargo entering and exiting North Korea. After some diplomatic prodding from the United States, China began limited checks of North Korean trucks crossing its border, but has thus far not agreed to inspect cargo ships transiting the waters in the region.

China is hesitant to enforce tough sanctions on North Korea because the threat of regional instability from a governmental collapse in Pyongyang is perceived to be greater than the risk of a North Korean nuclear attack on Chinese soil. If Kim Jong-Il decided to launch an atomic device at his long-time benefactor, the response would be swift and crushing, without any Chinese fear of repercussions from the world community.

But if North Korea collapses under the weight of crippling economic sanctions, China faces a humanitarian crisis of epic proportions. Refugees would flood across the border and instability would engulf the region. China knows that the North Korean economy is in dire straits. The people are starving and the situation seems to get worse with each passing month.

USA Today reported recently that the World Food Program warned it might have to cut food aid to North Korea early next year because donations from the world community have fallen woefully short. According to USA Today, the WFP has collected only 10-percent of the $102 million it needs to provide food to North Korea for the next two years.

China has been propping up Kim’s regime for a long time, flooding the country with money, food, and consumer goods. While the government in Beijing does not want to see nuclear proliferation in its backyard, it also does not want to deal with an economic and humanitarian disaster that experts warn could happen as soon as three months from now.

For now, at least, it appears that the enforcement of sanctions in the region will be limited to the efforts of the United States and Japan. Other countries, such as long-time American ally Australia, will prevent North Korean ships from entering their ports and will suspend trade with the DPRK. China will go through the motions of random checks at the border to make it look as if they are doing their part to enforce the U.N. resolution. They may even freeze some funds and restrict travel between the two countries.

But in the end, real enforcement of economic sanctions is not an immediate concern for the Chinese. While the United States wants to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons by a ruthless dictator, China wants to avoid the consequences of a complete implosion by its eastern neighbor. And as long as that is the case, the Chinese can be expected to do little to stop Kim Jong-Il’s nuclear pursuits. 

On Wednesday and Thursday of this week, CNN aired video footage of insurgent snipers targeting U.S. military personnel in Iraq. A CNN executive defended the airing of the video as part of the network's effort to present the "unvarnished truth" about the the war to the American people. 

Now, the CNN video does not show the actual bullet strikes, nor does it identify the victims. But it doesn't take much imagination to figure out the result when you hear the shot ring out.

Okay, CNN has the right to air the video. As a military officer, I have taken an oath to defend that right, and will do so to my dying breath.  But does that make it okay for CNN?

Legalities aside, showing such footage is insensitive and in plain bad taste. What about the husbands, wives, parents, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. that have loved ones in Iraq? Isn't enough that they worry every waking minute about the safety of our soldiers? Isn't enough that the news is saturated with the attacks, and the bombs, and the blood from Iraq, but almost never airs footage of the school building, medical services, and humanitarian missions that go on every day?

Why is this necessary? Is CNN trying to turn public opinion against the war even more than it already is? I submit that the influence of opinion is not their job. To report the news is.

CNN should start with a more balanced approach to what is going in Iraq and get away from the "If it bleeds, it leads" mentality. The truth about the war is that for every act of violence in Iraq, there are hundreds of acts of compassion and humanity. How about some video of that?

 

As the mid-term election cycle comes full circle, it seems as though everyone in the country has all but conceded that the Democratic Party will win the House of Representatives, and possibly the Senate. Of course, in light of recent news stories about our elected officials in Washington, this is hardly surprising.

Whether it’s the continuing difficulties in Iraq, the George Allen racial slur, the Mark Foley email sex scandal, the investigation of Curt Weldon, or the guilty plea of Bob Ney, it seems that the GOP is doing everything it can to ensure that it becomes the minority party in the Congress after the November elections.

There are a few notable exceptions to this consensus on Republican defeat, though, including President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, and conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh, who all predict that Republicans will maintain their majority status in both houses of congress. While the President and Vice-President have predicted a tough race in which Republicans will emerge victorious, Limbaugh has predicted that Republicans will not only maintain their majority in the House, but they will actually win additional seats in the mid-term contests.

Personally, I think the entire Congress is in need of a major overhaul. Power tends to corrupt and the vast majority of the men and women in the House and Senate today have spent far too much time in Washington already.

With most polls showing Democratic candidates with huge leads over Republican candidates, the Congress may experience its biggest shake up since the 1994 elections, in which Republicans swept to power in landslide victories across the country. But is that really what America wants? Sure the current Congress is rife with scandal and corruption. Republicans in both the House and Senate have strayed far from their conservative roots and their base of support has been steadily eroding. But what happens to the country if Democrats really do win in November?

For starters, the American people can expect to be subjected to numerous congressional investigations on everything from weapons of mass destruction and domestic wiretapping, to the supposed torture of terrorist detainees and the government’s alleged racist response to Hurricane Katrina. The hearings would be highly partisan on both sides of the aisle and the truly ugly nature of politics in Washington would be broadcast around the world for all to see.

Once the investigations reached the inevitable conclusion that everything was Bush’s fault, likely Chairman of the Judiciary Committee John Conyers would be free to pursue his long-time goal of impeachment proceedings against the President. Make no mistake about it. This would be the long sought after payback for the Republican impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton.

With the casualty count rising daily in Iraq, a Democratic Congress would likely vote to de-fund the war, forcing a wholesale withdrawal of American troops while abandoning the more than 20 allied countries who also have soldiers in the war-torn country, and the fragile Iraqi government that is relying on the United States to finish the job it started.

And, you can probably bank on an economic downturn if Nancy Pelosi becomes Speaker of the House and John Murtha becomes Majority Leader. Rush Limbaugh, in the October edition of his Limbaugh Letter, quoted Howard Dean as saying, “We’ll put a check on the President’s crazy economic policies.” That’s Democrat-speak for rolling back President Bush’s tax cuts.

Raising taxes on “the rich” seems like a good idea, but the markets typically respond negatively to tax increases on the people who do the majority of the investing and job creation in the country.

Government spending is also likely to increase, as hard as that may be to believe, with Charlie Rangel at the helm of the Ways and Means Committee. Citizens can expect to see a concerted drive for nationalized health care, more government regulation of industry, and increased social welfare funding.

Democrats need 15 seats in the House and 6 in the Senate to regain control of Congress. If they win the requisite number of races to become the majority party, there will likely be serious obstruction from both sides as a Republican President and a Democratic Congress block each other at every opportunity until the next round of elections in 2008.

I’ve never been one to pay much attention to the constant barrage of political poll results that fill the major networks and cable news channels. But this time around I am genuinely concerned. I fear they may, for once, be right with their predictions of a Democratic sweep.

The Republican Party deserves a serious wake-up call, and it has done everything it can to make that happen for itself. But the consequences of a Democratic victory are frightening indeed. While the GOP may pay for its loss of focus at the polling booth, it is America that will pay if the Republicans lose control of the Congress. 

Watching the photo opportunity between U.S. President George W. Bush and French President Jacques Chirac, as the various leaders of the world gathered in New York at the United Nations a few weeks ago, I could not help but reflect on the differences the two men exhibit as they head their respective states.

On the one hand is President Bush, leader of the most powerful nation in the world and son of a former U.S. President. He is fiercely loyal to those in his inner circle, extremely intelligent and well versed in geopolitics, despite what his critics may say about his occasional mangling of the English language. He is a man who stands by his convictions, regardless of public opinion and without concern for polling data or what seems “popular.”

George Bush has a vision for the future. Some agree with that vision, and some do not. He sees the current global environment as nothing short of a life-and-death struggle between good and evil. He believes deeply that he is right and just in trying to spread American-style democracy and does not bend from his positions. In a political system that lives and dies by public opinion, President Bush remains true to his beliefs.

As the mid-term election campaign season got into full gear, many in the country expected a large withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq as a means for shoring up electoral support for the Republican Party and GOP candidates. The anticipated move was touted as political maneuvering and a ploy to use American soldiers to retain or win seats in Congress.

But President Bush’s commander on the ground in Iraq, General George Casey, recently announced that the current level of troops battling the Iraqi insurgency, a level that has increased from 127,000 to 140,000 in the past few months, would remain the same at least through the end of this year and possibly through 2010. So much for pulling out just in time to retain control of the House and Senate.

Time and again the President sticks to his guns. In Iraq, he is fulfilling his commitment to the fragile unity government to stay until the fight is done, despite public discontent for the war at home and despite repeated calls to get out of Iraq as soon as possible.

Opposite President Bush is French President Jacques Chirac. Chirac can best be described as the ultimate symbol of European appeasement. He consistently seeks political accommodation, no matter what the issue, and regardless of whether he has made promises to his allies.

I understand that nearly all diplomatic agreements are compromises. States give and take constantly in order to satisfy all involved parties. Sometimes, though, compromise is not, or should not, be an option.

Repeatedly, President Chirac has made promises to other nations only to reverse his position when confronted or challenged. After voting for multiple resolutions demanding that Iraq give up weapons of mass destruction and allow unfettered access to IAEA inspectors, France abandoned the United States and England when the time came to enforce those resolutions in 2003.

In the latest conflict between Hezbollah and Israel, President Chirac promised to lead a UN peacekeeping effort in Lebanon and to provide thousands of troops for the mission. After the resolution was passed, however, and the French were asked to deploy soldiers to the region, Chirac reversed himself again and offered only a few hundred auxiliary troops without French command of the U.N. force. It was only after much prodding from the United Nations that Chirac agreed to increase the number of troops headed for Lebanon, though the additional effort still fell short of original French promises.

Most recently, the French under Chirac have again begun the process of abandoning allies in the nuclear standoff with Iran. After voting for a United Nations Security Council resolution demanding that Iran cease uranium enrichment by August 31 or face sanctions, Chirac is now calling for an indefinite period of negotiations, without the previous demand of uranium enrichment suspension.

During the photo opportunity with President Bush, Chirac touted Franco-American relations and claimed that he and Bush saw eye-to-eye on the issue of Iran. Soon after the conclusion of the meeting, though, President Chirac spoke to the United Nations and asserted his belief that the time was not right for sanctions, even though President Bush has repeatedly called for the enforcement of the U.N. resolution calling for sanctions. What changed so suddenly? What happened to seeing eye-to-eye on Iran’s nuclear ambitions? Now, several weeks later and with Iran still defying the United Nations, Chirac still wants to find a way to talk to Ahmadinejad and the clerics.

The reality is that Chirac is a die-hard Europeanist. He sees the European Union as a potential superpower and counter balance to U.S. hegemony. He pushed for a European Constitution that would have surrendered much of France’s sovereign power, although in the end French voters rejected his efforts. He uses French veto power in the U.N. Security Council to thwart U.S. initiatives at every opportunity. His dream for a European super-continent that rivals the United States dominates his thinking and drives his quest to appease everyone but his American ally.

While President Bush provides strong leadership based on core beliefs and an unwavering commitment to the fight between good and evil, President Chirac seeks accommodation at the expense of what is right or just. His statements vary from audience to audience and he leads by reaction instead of by example. Given a choice, I’d take a President Bush over a President Chirac any day.

Army News Service reported today that 307 soldiers from the 4th BCT, 25th Infantry Division reenlisted at Camp Buehring, Kuwait this past weekend. How can that be? Soldiers reenlisting? While deployed?

Everything I hear in the mainstream media and from the left-wing talking groups tells me that soldiers are abandoning the Army as fast as their enlistments expire.

Stop and think about this for a moment. A brigade typically consists of about 3,000 soldiers, give or take a few. That means a full 10% reenlisted at one time. Now, since not all enlistments expire at the same time, this number means that A LOT of soldiers are choosing to stay Army.

Why would they do that? There are lots of reasons why soldiers join and stay in the Army. Some are being good patriots. Some need the job. Some are continuing a family tradition. Some want education benefits. Some are escaping broken homes and bad neighborhoods. But when it comes to combat, soldiers fight for each other. Sure, they want to accomplish their assigned missions. But when you really sit down and talk to them, you find out that soldiers never want to let their buddies down. They see Iraq as a fight that they are in together, and they would never dream of leaving their buddies. Sure, some soldiers leave the Army every day. But more are staying than ever. Retention rates are through the roof, especially in deployed units.

Despite what the mainstream media and left-wing pundits say, soldiers are not fleeing from the Army because of the war in Iraq. On the contrary, reenlistment rates are at record high levels, especially in deployed units. 

Several months ago I wrote a column in which I defended the right of Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church to stage protests at the funeral sites of soldiers killed in the Global War on Terror. Despite many legal efforts to restrict these demonstrations, Phelps and his flock continue to rally at the graves of our war dead. And now the tiny Kansas church is getting help from the ACLU.

Phelps and his flock first gained national notoriety when they began showing up at military funerals waving signs that read “God Hates Fags” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers.” The basic sermon goes something like this: because America tolerates homosexuality, God is offended and is killing off the young men and women of our military as punishment for our sins.

Phelps preaches a radical, fire-and-brimstone message that twists scripture to suit his agenda. He viciously attacks the families of fallen soldiers and desecrates their memories when they are most vulnerable. And he makes no apologies for what he is doing.

In response to overwhelming public discontent over Phelps’ tactics, 29 states and the U.S. Congress passed laws designed to prevent people like Phelps from disrupting military funerals. This past Memorial Day, President Bush signed into law the Respect for America’s Fallen Heroes Act, prohibiting demonstrations within a certain distance of national cemeteries.

Private groups like the Patriot Guard Riders stage their own counter-protests to provide a buffer between Phelps and the soldiers’ families. These groups generally keep their demonstrations low-key and just try to shield the grieving loved ones from the hate-filled rhetoric of the Westboro Baptist Church. The Patriot Guard has received overwhelming support and its 50,000-plus members travel the country to match Phelps protest for protest.

As I argued back in June, though, Phelps and other protestors are guaranteed the right to stage their rallies by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble….”

This is an emotional issue that equally inflames the passions of those disgusted by Phelps and those who recognize that, passion aside, laws limiting the rights of free speech and assembly must be challenged as unconstitutional. The American Civil Liberties Union has now entered the fight and is helping Phelps challenge some of the state laws. It is likely this battle will eventually make its way to the United States Supreme Court.

When all is said and done, there is a strong possibility that the laws enacted by the states and Congress in response to the Westboro Baptist Church will be thrown out as violations of the Constitution’s Bill of Rights. If the laws are examined on the basis of the U.S. Constitution, and not on the basis of what justices believe to be right or wrong, then Phelps and his congregation will emerge victorious.

If it is the will of the people that certain types of speech be limited under specific circumstances, then a change to the Constitution is the appropriate course of action. While laws targeted at actions that most people find offensive seem like the sensible thing to do, such statutes violate the basic principles upon which this country was founded. Congress should draft a Constitutional amendment that the people of the various states can then accept or reject. Simply bypassing the Constitution as it is currently written is not an option.

As I said in my previous column on this subject, I find the actions of Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church to be morally bankrupt, uncharacteristic of the Christian faith I was raised in, and in just plain bad taste.

But none of this changes the fact that protests at the funerals of our fallen heroes are based on sound legal principles supported by the First Amendment to the Constitution. Phelps’ followers have the same rights to free speech and assembly at military funerals as the Patriot Guard Riders. And it is these rights that the men and women at the center of the controversy, our fallen heroes, died to protect.

Iran’s supreme leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, recently told Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that the best way for him to end the ongoing violence and ensure stability and security was to begin the withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq. Khamenei was explicit in his desire to see the rapid departure of American soldiers, but the consequences of a premature U.S. withdrawal would prove to be nothing short of catastrophic.

There are three basic parties, excluding American Democrats, which are actively pushing for the removal of U.S. and coalition troops from Iraq: Iran, the Shiite faction led by radical Iraqi cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, and the foreign jihadists who have flocked to Iraq to confront the United States in the Global War on Terror.

Iran has been making a concerted effort to establish itself as the leading state in the Middle East. In pursuit of this strategic goal, Khamenei and Iranian President Ahmadinejad have been actively antagonizing the United States over their nuclear program in order to portray Iran as a nation that must be reckoned with. Simultaneously, the Iranians have used Hezbollah to wage a proxy war against Israel, and the Shiites in southern Iraq to foment unrest that threatens the fragile government in Baghdad.

The conflict in Lebanon and the increasing Shiite-Sunni violence are meant to further demonstrate to the west that Iran has the ability, and the will, to destabilize the entire region for political gain. With the United States out of Iraq, there would be little to stop the Iranians from turning Iraq into a satellite state that could help cement Iran’s hegemony in the Middle East.

Muqtada al-Sadr has been a thorn in the side of the United States since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. His Mehdi Army has confronted U.S. and coalition troops in battle and his followers are largely responsible for the Shiite death squads attacking the Sunni minority and pushing Iraq closer to all-out civil war. Al-Sadr is closely aligned with the Shiite leadership in Iran and he has consistently called for the withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Iraq. The absence of U.S. troops would allow Al-Sadr’s militia to conduct a genocide campaign against the Sunnis while providing Iran with additional leverage over the government in Baghdad.

Finally, Islamic extremists from all over the world have traveled to Iraq to join the battle against the United States and the west. Al-Qaeda in Iraq and various other fundamentalist groups, while constituting a minority of the Iraqi insurgency, are determined to take advantage of the current chaos to wage war on anyone, Iraqis included, who opposes the formation of an Islamic state. The withdrawal of American troops from Iraq would embolden the jihadists, who would then take advantage of the power vacuum to promote Islamic rule similar to that of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Opposite the parties calling for America to leave Iraq are the groups with the most to lose in the event of a withdrawal of U.S. troops.

First on this list is the current Iraqi unity government. The leaders in Baghdad know that the presence of coalition forces is the only reason the situation in Iraq has not devolved into all-out civil war. Withdrawing American soldiers and their allies would leave the Shiite and Sunni death squads free to conduct their sectarian war while a fledgling Iraqi Army stood by unable to stop the carnage. In the event of full-fledged sectarian violence, the government in Baghdad would collapse, leaving a void that would likely be filled by the Iranians.

The second group opposed to a U.S. withdrawal is the Sunni minority. Yes, it’s true that the Sunnis make up the bulk of the insurgency waging war against coalition troops. But the Sunnis are fighting for a place in Shiite dominated Iraqi society. Waging a ruthless campaign against the U.S. and Iraqi armies, and against the central government, is the only bargaining chip available to a group that would surely be targeted for annihilation in a sectarian war. In an odd twist, the Sunnis have to attack the Americans to make them stay until a political accommodation can be reached.

Finally, Iraq’s neighboring countries are fearful of a powerful Iran, aligned with a Shiite-led Iraq that would threaten Sunni regimes in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, and throughout the Middle East. While none of these governments like the idea of U.S. troops in the region, especially for an extended period, the alternative in the form of an Iraq-Iran alliance that could dominate the entire Middle East is even more distasteful.

Despite the difficulties being faced in Iraq, the United States must see this fight through to the end. The fragile unity government in Baghdad must be given a chance to survive on its own.

Pulling American troops out now would give the jihadists the victory they have long been searching for, would make America look weak in the eyes of the world, would thrust Iraq into a bloody civil war, and would create a power vacuum in the Middle East that would allow Iran to establish itself as the regional hegemon. Those are the true consequences of a premature American withdrawal.

It has now been almost a month since the United Nations demanded that Iran cease it’s enrichment of uranium or face sanctions from the world community. Sadly, the united front demonstrated during the passing of the U.N. Security Council’s resolution has quickly faded as the United Nations is showing yet again why the organization simply does not matter when it comes to issues of global stability.

In July, the U.N. Security Council demanded that Iran respond to an incentives package in “weeks rather than months.” Since then, Iran has defiantly stuck to its self-imposed deadline of August 22 for a formal response, ignored the August 31 deadline for the cessation of uranium enrichment, and continued to delay any discussion of its nuclear program, all the while promising Kofi Annan and the world further negotiations.

While the United States continues to favor sanctions, China, Russia, and the major European nations have abandoned their commitments to the Security Council and are now urging further diplomacy.

When it comes to China and Russia, it is not difficult to determine the motivations behind their actions. Both nations retreated from the threat of sanctions almost as soon as the Security Council resolution was passed, in part due to economic concerns and in part due to a fervent desire to defy the United States at every opportunity, no matter what the issue.

The Europeans, particularly Britain and Germany are somewhat more difficult to understand. The United Kingdom, particularly under Prime Minister Tony Blair, has been a staunch supporter of U.S. foreign policy, a critical ally in the war on terror, and a vocal critic of Ahmadinejad and the radical clerics who pull his puppet strings. Germany, under new Chancellor Angela Merkel, has made a concerted effort to move closer to the United States and has been among the most adamant voices calling for Iran to be held accountable for its actions.

Yet, both the United Kingdom and Germany signed a joint statement with long-time appeaser France that asks Iran to comply with it obligations under the U.N. Security Council resolution. That’s right, the major European powers are now ASKING Iran to agree to the terms they had previously demanded. It could be that public support for the governments in Britain and Germany is waning. It could be that neither is really willing to confront Iran about its nuclear program.

Either way, nothing is happening at the U.N. headquarters in New York, Iran is still enriching uranium, and the impotence of the Security Council is again glaringly obvious. All of this is happening because Iran knows what President Bush knows.

Iran knows that the divisions within the United Nations, and particularly within the Security Council, run deep. Iran knows that no amount of bellicose rhetoric will actually translate into meaningful sanctions or military action against its nuclear facilities, at least not with U.N. approval. Iran knows that the resolution demanding that it cease uranium enrichment is not worth the paper it is printed on.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton recently said the United States should give the U.N. until the end of this year to clean up its act. If the world body cannot or will not address its bureaucratic inefficiencies or its mismanagement by then, Bolton says the U.S. should consider cutting back on its dues. This is no small threat since the United States provides the U.N. with about one quarter of its annual budget.

But the reason for the warning is likely more than inefficiency and mismanagement. Any organization the size of the United Nations is going to be wrought with bureaucratic waste and poor leadership, at some levels if not all.

No, it is more probable that President Bush is tired of wasting U.S. diplomatic efforts in an organization that is more concerned with everyone getting along than with addressing serious security issues. It is more likely that President Bush is rapidly losing patience with a Security Council that ignores global security in the interest of national gain and increasingly defies the United States just for the sake of doing so.

Bolton’s remarks were likely a warning to the United Nations that the issue of Iran’s nuclear program could be the final straw for the Bush administration. The cutting of dues would probably be a precursor to the total U.S. abandonment of the U.N. And if the halls of the U.N. are without the powerful voice of the world’s only remaining superpower, the only sound to be heard will be the laughter of a nuclear-armed Ahmadinejad.

United States Marine Corps General James L. Jones recently called upon member countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to send an additional 2,000 to 2,500 troops to Afghanistan to supplement the nearly 20,000 already taking part in military operations against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda fighters. As the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe for NATO, General Jones is trying to drive home the point that America’s allies in the defense organization are not contributing their fair share of military resources to the war on terror.

Following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, NATO for the first time invoked Article 5, the collective defense clause, declaring the attacks to be an attack against all NATO member countries. Yet, the Washington Times reported earlier this year that the United States’ major allies in NATO had cut their overall troop levels and had reduced defense spending as a percentage of their economies. At the same time, the United States increased both total manpower and defense spending as a percentage of GDP in order to meet the requirements of a global war on terror.

General Jones is diplomatically trying to demonstrate that reduced resources from America’s NATO allies hinder the ability of combat troops in Afghanistan to take on the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. His request comes amid a marked increase in violence in the country, particularly in the south where enemy forces are increasingly active. It is likely that Taliban and Al-Qaeda fighters are making a concerted push against NATO forces before the winter weather sets in and slows the pace of combat operations until the country thaws out in the spring.

So far, the NATO countries have responded to the request by complaining that they are already stretched too thin across the globe and that additional troops are not likely to deploy to Afghanistan any time soon. Pressure from the United States, though, may help General Jones get some of the assets he is seeking. Stratfor, Inc. has reported that Canada has agreed to send 25% of its tank force (15 Leopard C2 main battle tanks) and 120 additional personnel to help with the fight in Afghanistan. Poland also has agreed to contribute more troops by announcing that 1,000 additional Polish soldiers will deploy to the NATO force next year.

But these additional troop contributions represent less than half the number requested by the commander on the ground, the man who presumably knows best what military resources will be needed to ensure victory for a fledgling Afghan democracy. Despite taking over control of operations in Afghanistan, the member countries of NATO appear to be wavering in their resolve to fight the war on terror.

Perhaps the absence of significant attacks against western targets has contributed to the fading of memories since the attacks on New York and Washington. Complacency seems to have set in as countries focus more on domestic matters and less on foreign military operations.

Despite the many thwarted attacks around the world, it appears the members of NATO need to be reminded that there is a radical threat from a perverse ideology that is opposed to everything we stand for. It appears they need to be reminded that Islamic fundamentalists want nothing less than the destruction of western civilization.

The time is now for NATO to step up to the plate and help the United States confront a common enemy. I only hope that it won’t take another grand attack that claims the lives of thousands of innocent people to shake NATO out of its slumber. 

If you pay attention to the New York Times, the leadership of the Democratic Party, or the left wing pundits filling the airwaves, you get the impression that the U.S. Army is struggling to find men and women willing to volunteer to fill the ranks in the service of their country. Recently released statistics, though, seem to contradict that assumption.

When the Army failed to meet its recruiting goals a couple of years ago, many saw it as a sign that young people in America were staying away from military service because of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Many complained that we did not have enough soldiers to meet our global commitments. Congress responded by raising the statutory limit on troop levels, as if changing the number on paper would somehow magically produce new soldiers to fight the war on terror.

The worry about a withering Army, however, seems to have been misplaced. According to the Washington Times, the Army is on track to meet its goal of 80,000 new recruits for the fiscal year that ends September 30. At this point in the recruiting cycle, the Army has surpassed its goal of 70,000 new recruits with 72,997 signing up so far.

It is important to note that the Army is the branch of service suffering the largest number of killed and wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. The recently released statistics seem to undermine the belief that the war on terror is driving young men and women away from uniformed service.

Still, there will be those who point out that the Army has raised its age limit for new recruits from 38 to 42. But these critics fail to understand that not every job in the Army requires someone under the age of 25. Not every soldier will fight in the infantry. And those new recruits who are older than the average enlistee are still required to meet the Army’s physical fitness standards. It would be foolish for the Army to exclude Americans who want to serve their country based solely on their age.

Others will point out that the Army has increased benefits such as college tuition reimbursement and enlistment bonuses. But what private company doesn’t sweeten the pot by offering incentives to potential employees? The Army is no different, and with an all-volunteer force must compete against the private sector for its employees.

And the Army is not alone when it comes to recruiting. The Navy and Air Force are also on target to meet their recruiting goals. So is the Marine Corps, which has responsibility for the deadly Al-Anbar province, including the cities of Ramadi and Fallujah, in western Iraq. The Washington Times reports that the Marine Corps will meet its goal of 32,701 new recruits without any increase in benefits or change in enlistment requirements.

By focusing on statistics for new recruits, however, the left misses an important fact. Retention statistics, which account for the number of soldiers who agree to reenlist, are at an all-time high. More soldiers are choosing to stay in the Army, even after multiple tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. Even more remarkably, retention numbers are highest for units who are forward deployed in combat zones!

Could it be that the Army is an attractive option for young job seekers? Could it be that skill training (there are over 200 different jobs in the Army), college tuition benefits, health care coverage, and a regular paycheck are attracting young men and women to military service? Could it be that there are patriotic young people in this country with a genuine desire to serve their nation in its time of need?

The truth is, recruiting and retention numbers can be explained by all of these factors. Raising the age limit for new recruits has opened the door to military service for a new segment of the population. College tuition benefits and skill training attract young people who might otherwise have difficulty marketing themselves to the private sector. And men and women with a sincere desire to serve their country are signing up in the face of renewed violence in Afghanistan and an unrelenting insurgency in Iraq.

In their effort to push as much negativity as possible about the war on terror, the liberal left has lost focus on the fact that the United States is locked in a life-and-death struggle for its very survival. And that loss of focus has obscured the fact that for more reasons than not, Americans are enlisting and staying in the service of their nation.

Since the beginning of the war in Iraq, virtually everyone from U.S. government officials to Washington think tanks to the mainstream media has subscribed to the idea of a national government seated in Baghdad. As the war drags on, though, the idea of an Iraq divided into three autonomous states, based largely along sectarian lines, is beginning to pick up some momentum, particularly among the Iraqi citizenry. Despite U.S. pressure to maintain a unity government, the division of Iraq into three new states may provide the best hope for eventual peace.

A bloc of the majority Shiites, led by Abdul Aziz Al-Hakim, leader of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, has been pushing legislation in the Iraqi parliament that would enable the creation of an autonomous Shiite region in the Iraqi south. This independent federation of provinces would have control over its own security, and over the oil reserves located in southern Iraq.

Under the Shiite plan, the southern districts of Iraq would combine to form an independent region much like the Kurdish region currently in place in the north. Kurdish leaders, who have long sought independence from the central Iraqi government, predictably support the legislation.

Since the toppling of Saddam Hussein’s Sunni-dominated regime, the Kurds have been quietly, and not so quietly at times, moving forward with their plan for an autonomous Kurdistan that would be self-governing and would control the oil fields in northern Iraq.

The Kurds have never missed an opportunity to oppose a central Iraqi government, calling for the authority to secure northern Iraq with Kurdish militias, the control of oil revenues from the northern fields, and the removal of the Iraqi Army from Kurdish controlled areas. Recently, Massoud Barzani, head of the current government in the Kurdish north, demanded the Iraqi national flag being flown on government buildings be removed and replaced with the Kurdish flag.

Simultaneously, the Kurds have launched “The Other Iraq Campaign 2006,” an all-out media blitz in the United States designed to encourage business investment in Kurdish agriculture and in the oil fields located in the Kurdish region. Television commercials feature Iraqi Kurds thanking the United States for freeing them from Saddam, with images of ink-stained fingers and waving American flags.

A web site called “Kurdistan: The Other Iraq” provides a history of the Kurdish people and details their struggle to survive generation after generation of oppression. Multiple links on the site tout their successes in the north:

“Not a single coalition soldier has lost his/her life or a single foreigner kidnapped in the region administered by the Kurdistan Regional Government.”

“Erbil International and Suleimani airports are now fully operational and receive regular direct flights from neighbouring countries and Europe.”

“2,800 Korean troops and fewer than 1,000 US troops are stationed in the Kurdistan region to assist in rehabilitating infrastructure.”

“An innovative 2 million sq meter industrial city (Arat) is planned 25 kilometres outside Erbil and will be open to foreign investment.”

“Investors will have a legal, secure and business friendly constitutional environment that is designed to encourage inward investment.”

If the proposed legislation were to pass the Iraqi parliament, the Kurds would exercise self-government in the north and would control the revenues from oil reserves located in the Kurdish areas. The Shiites would find themselves in a similar situation in the south, while the remaining sect, the Sunnis, would be left with an area west and just north of Baghdad that is primarily desert and practically devoid of oil.

As expected, Sunni lawmakers opposed the push for autonomous regions and threatened the stability of the current unity government if the Shiite plan went forward. The threat from the Sunnis has to be taken seriously. A violent insurgency that is largely Sunni-based has forced the Shiite and Kurdish majorities to recognize that any hope for peace in Iraq will have to include some form of political accommodation with the minority sect that maintained a ruthless dictatorship in Iraq for three decades.

For now, at least, it appears the Shiites and Kurds are unwilling to risk a further downward spiral in the violence in Iraq by alienating the Sunni minority. The speaker of the Iraqi parliament, Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, has been reported as saying an agreement has been reached to postpone the Shiite legislation indefinitely.

With two of the three major sects pushing for autonomous regions, though, the question becomes this: how long will the Sunnis be able to hold on in the face of superior American firepower and a Shiite-dominated Iraqi Army that is steadily increasing its capabilities?

By postponing the legislation for autonomous regions, the Shiites and Kurds are merely delaying what they see as the inevitable: an Iraq divided into three self-governing regions, each with control of the natural resources located within their borders. The Shiites and Kurds see the other Iraq.

As the mid-term election cycle enters the home stretch, Democratic congressional candidates, party leaders, and left-wing pundits are taking to the airwaves in a vigorous assault on the Bush administration’s handling of the Global War on Terror. By criticizing President Bush for diverting military manpower from the hunt for Osama Bin Laden, and by repeatedly calling for the rapid withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, Democrats demonstrate with remarkable clarity that they just don’t understand the purpose of the war or the battlegrounds upon which it is being fought.

After terrorists successfully attacked the United States on September 11, 2001, President Bush announced the launching of the Global War on Terror, a military and law enforcement campaign that would take the fight to our enemies so that we would not have to fight them at home. Really, though, America had been at war with fundamentalist Islamic ideology, manifesting itself in the form of vicious terrorist attacks against the United States and her allies, since long before the Twin Towers fell, the Pentagon was struck, and Americans fought back on United Flight 93 over Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

Radical Islamic terrorists attacked a U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon in 1983, killing nearly two hundred fifty American service members. They struck again in Mogadishu, Somalia and in the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993. They attacked us in Saudi Arabia in 1996, in East Africa in 1998, and in Yemen in 2000. They have called for the destruction of the United States and made clear their intent to attack and kill Americans whenever and wherever they could.

There is no disputing that Bin Laden is responsible for the murder of thousands of American citizens. But to focus on killing or capturing him as a means for ending the terrorist threat would be a strategic mistake and a tremendous waste of critical resources. Taking out Bin Laden would certainly be cause for celebration, but it would mean little in the overall battle against radical Islamic terrorists.

The combination of U.S. military and law enforcement pressure and the killing or capturing of multiple senior Al-Qaeda figures have degraded the effectiveness of the organization’s central leadership. Most terrorist activity today is conducted by small networks or cells that, although inspired by Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden and a fundamentalist ideology, operate independently from his command. The terrorist threat will continue with or without Bin Laden, just as it did in Iraq after the demise of Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi.

The war on terror has never been solely about Bin Laden or those associated with the planning and execution of the 9/11 attacks. The war on terror is about combating an ideology that practices hatred and violence. President Bush has understood from the beginning that the best solution to the terrorist problem is the promotion of freedom and democracy in places where repression and dictatorial rule stifle human liberty.

By deposing Saddam Hussein and seeking to install a democratic government in Iraq, the United States has opened the door to the possibility for change in a region dominated by conflict, hatred, and oppression. A democratic Iraq could serve as a model for a new Middle East, where citizens have a voice in government, where women are not treated as objects or subjugated to second-class status, and where the rule of law is based on fairness and equality.

It is true that no verifiable link between Saddam Hussein and the attacks of 9/11 has been established. It is also true that intelligence about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction proved to be flawed, even though we know that Iraq has possessed and used such weapons in the past. But the Democratic claim that the conflict in Iraq is not part of the Global War on Terror is not only erroneous, it is indicative of a party unprepared to provide for the security of this nation.

According to a Council on Foreign Relations report published last year, Saddam provided headquarters, operating bases, training camps, and other support to terrorist groups, particularly the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq in its fight against the Iranian government, and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party in its attacks against the moderate government in Turkey. And it has been reported that Saddam provided money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers who murdered Israeli civilians.

While Iraq may not have been a prominent battleground for terrorists fighting the U.S. before the March 2003 invasion, it has undeniably become a crucial front in the war on terror today. Jihadists from Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Yemen, Algeria, and other countries have flocked to Iraq to participate in the battle between the forces of freedom and the forces of terror.

Speaking to members of the American Legion in Salt Lake City, Utah last month, President Bush said, “Victory in Iraq will be difficult, and it will require more sacrifice. The fighting there can be as fierce as it was at Omaha Beach or Guadalcanal, and defeating terrorists in Iraq is as important to the United States as it was to win those World War II battles.”

Regardless of the reasons for going into Iraq, the battle has now been joined. Withdrawing before the fight is over will embolden the terrorist forces now opposing us across the globe, weaken America in the eyes of the world, and doom any hope of real change in the Middle East for generations to come. What’s so hard to understand about that?

Although not a participant in this year’s mid-term election cycle, but perhaps in anticipation of another White House run, former Democratic Presidential hopeful and Massachusetts Senator John Kerry last month re-released his plan for health care coverage for all Americans. I say re-released because the ideas outlined in the plan are virtually the same as the ones he campaigned on during his 2004 bid for the Presidency. And, just as in 2004, the Senator’s plan is a very bad idea.

Kerry is proposing a federal requirement for all Americans to have health care coverage by 2012, less than six years from now, and coincidentally, just in time for a Kerry re-election campaign if he somehow wins the Presidency in 2008.

Included in Kerry’s plan is an expansion of the current Medicaid program to cover children and an opportunity for ordinary citizens to buy into the insurance coverage currently offered to federal workers, including, as the Associated Press noted, the members of Congress. Does anyone really believe that the general public will receive access to the same health care coverage as Congress?

And don’t worry if you think you can’t afford health insurance. Senator Kerry intends to have the federal government guarantee the financial means for your health care coverage. How’s he going to do that? In true-blue Democratic fashion, Senator Kerry plans to revive with increased vigor the long-standing leftist call to repeal President Bush’s tax cuts for those Americans who earn over $200,000 per year.

Senator Kerry’s plan to provide universal health care coverage at the expense of the Bush tax cuts, although very appealing to the political left, is economic nonsense. For starters, the plan to expand Medicaid is pointless unless the program is subjected to seriously needed reforms.

Medicaid already struggles to meet the health care needs of those it services because it has grown beyond its original intent and purpose. According to Heritage Foundation research, Medicaid currently provides care to over 53 million low-income Americans. The program is providing more services than it can sustain financially, resulting in a decline in the quality of its care, including lower reimbursement fees for doctors and limited access to prescription medications for patients. Unless Medicaid’s current problems are fixed, expanding the program will only contribute to bureaucratic waste and inefficiency that will ultimately hurt those most in need.

And, most economists agree that Senator Kerry’s plan to repeal the President’s tax cuts will be detrimental to the American economy. Under President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress, the top income tax rate fell from over thirty-nine percent to thirty-five percent, spurring investment and savings that have contributed to a steady decline in unemployment and record growth for the United States.

Repealing these tax cuts, or just letting them expire by not making them permanent, will increase the tax burden on those individuals most likely to spur economic activity, decrease the likelihood of investment, and retard the country’s economic progress.

Instead of repealing the tax cuts for those workers earning over $200,000 annually, other options for increasing accessibility to health care coverage should be explored. For example, the government could offer direct tax credits to low-income individuals and families that would allow them to purchase private health insurance themselves, thereby promoting individual choice and preventing an even further intrusion of the federal government into the lives of average Americans.

Senator Kerry’s plan for universal health care coverage will weaken current federal programs, further limit individual choice, and damage the American economy. It is an appeal to low-income Americans at the expense of their fellow citizens.

I can’t help but wonder what would happen if the proverbial shoe was suddenly on the other foot? What if the hard work of the Kerry plan’s beneficiaries eventually moved them into progressively higher tax brackets? I’m sure they wouldn’t mind at all if someone like Senator Kerry came along and asked them to pay just a little bit more of their hard-earned dollars in taxes to help out their fellow citizens. Or would they?