Iraq and war on terror

The leadership of the Democratic Party wants the U.S. to get out of Iraq because, as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid explained, "the war is lost."

I'd like to consider this position in light of this week's U.S. State Department annual report on terrorism, showing more than half of the world's 2006 terrorism deaths occurred in Iraq.

Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and others who want to withdraw from Iraq at the earliest opportunity might cite that report as evidence to bolster their argument.

However, I suggest the report does just the opposite – speaking to the absolute urgency of an increased and more determined commitment to unequivocal and absolute victory in Iraq.

Think about this now.

There were 20,498 people killed by terrorists in 2006. Of that total, 13,340 were killed in Iraq.

This is not evidence we are losing the war in Iraq. Rather it is evidence Iraq has clearly become the center of the war between the West and Islamo-fascist terrorists.

In other words, there can be no question – not by any objective standard – that Iraq is now the focal point of the showdown, the so-called war on terrorism. The grisly statistics prove the case.

The Democratic leadership looks at those statistics and determines America needs to run away from them.

But running away from those statistics – as ugly as they might be – means running away from the "war on terrorism." It means surrender – not only to the al-Qaida enemy in Iraq, but to the worldwide al-Qaida enemy and its allies.

Reid, Pelosi, et al. want to take U.S. troops away from fighting terrorists in Iraq and redeploy them to calmer, more peaceful venues where there will be less chance of casualties – for both American fighting men and the bad guys.

Does this make any sense?

Will the Democratic leadership admit what it really seeks to do with its cut-and-run plan is to surrender in the "war on terrorism"?

Is there a clear-thinking American who cannot see this for himself?

Seeing the increased carnage in Iraq, people committed to defeating the Islamo-fascist terrorists and protecting our homeland from these enemies should unequivocally determine to fight the enemy harder on this central front.

It is an absolute fact that we can fight them there or fight them here. The fact that most of the terrorist violence is taking place in Iraq should suggest our strategy to make America safer is working. No major terrorist attacks here, while the body count rises in Iraq.

My point is that leaving Iraq means waving the white flag to the people who attacked the U.S. Sept. 11.

We are fighting al-Qaida in Iraq today.

You can argue the war was misguided from the beginning. You can argue that you were misled. You can argue there were no terrorists in Iraq when we invaded.

But you can't argue that terrorists aren't there now. The U.S. State Department report should clarify just what the stakes are in Iraq. It has become the "war on terrorism."

Now let's look at another part of the report – one we all understand. It shows, once again, that Iran is the leading sponsor of terrorism in the world today, followed closely by Syria. Both of these countries border Iraq.

Americans need to comprehend the magnitude of a decision to leave Iraq now – to hand it over to the Islamo-fascist terrorist enemy on a silver platter.

Iraq and Syria and al-Qaida would all be emboldened by the Democrats' surrender plan.

All the sacrifices we have made in Iraq to date would be for naught.

America would be viewed by the enemy as a "paper tiger" ready to yield to more pressure and more attacks.

Truly, instead of fighting them over there, we will be fighting them over here.

Related special offer:

"Religion of Peace? Islam's War Against the World"