Calling the Question

by Robert J. Romano

June 16th, 2006

*Updated June 18th, 2006

        Capping off a monumental congressional debate on the Iraqi theatre in the war on terrorism, the House of Representatives today overwhelmingly passed H. Res. 861, "Declaring that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary," by a margin of 256-153, or with 62.59% of those present and voting in favor.  Of those present and voting, 214 Republicans and 42 Democrats were in favor, and 149 Democrats and 3 Republicans were against, splitting Democrats on a resolution which supports "Iraq as part of the Global War on Terror..." and states that "the terrorists have declared Iraq to be the central front in their war against all who oppose their ideology..." Very clearly one of the questions with which representatives in both parties wrestled with is this: is Iraq a theatre in the war on terrorism? Similarly, the resolution rejected an immediate redeployment of MNF out of Iraq: "it is not in the national security interest of the United States to set an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq..." And so, to answer these two questions: 1) "Is Iraq a theatre in the war on terrorism?" and 2) "Should the United States set up a timetable for the withdrawal or redeployment of forces from Iraq?" the answers from the House were a resounding, "Yes," and "No," respectively. 

        Here at The Federal Republican, this author has consistently called the Democrat party to task for repeatedly denying that Iraq is even a theatre in the war on terrorism and tyranny, a criticism which they have leveled ever since debate on whether to take military action against Hussein's Iraq began in 2002.  "Iraq is a diversion from the war on terror..." is a slogan we all remember well from the 2004 election campaign, wherein Democrats define the war as one limited to taking action against the terrorist organization, al Qaeda.  Of course, it is al Qaeda that has determined to make its stand in Iraq, and recently have been devastated by hundreds of raids and the elimination of their leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al Zarqawi.  For Democrats to claim that Iraq is not a theatre in the war on terror is irresponsible and sends precisely the wrong message to our Iraqi allies, who have taken an overwhelming amount of casualties at the hands of terrorist bombers.  It is not "nonsense," as one Democrat representative stated, to say that Iraq is indeed a theatre in this global war, it is nonsense to say that it is not. 

        Not only was Iraq a state sponsor of terrorism, as identified by the U.S. State Department, when the coalition liberated Iraq in 2003, al Zarqawi himself had taken refuge inside Iraq prior to that action, as was pointed out by then Secretary of State, Colin Powell, at the United Nations on February 5th, 2003: "I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi an associate and collaborator of Usama bin Laden and his al-Qaida lieutenants... Zarqawi, Palestinian born in Jordan, fought in the Afghan war more than a decade ago. Returning to Afghanistan in 2000, he oversaw a terrorist training camp. One of his specialties, and one of the specialties of this camp, is poisons... When our coalition ousted the Taliban, the Zarqawi network helped establish another poison and explosive training center camp, and this camp is located in northeastern Iraq... Those helping to run this camp are Zarqawi lieutenants operating in northern Kurdish areas outside Saddam Hussein's controlled Iraq. But Baghdad has an agent in the most senior levels of the radical organization Ansar al-Islam that controls this corner of Iraq. In 2000, this agent offered al-Qaida safe haven in the region... After we swept al-Qaida from Afghanistan, some of those members accepted this safe haven. They remain there today... Zarqawi's activities are not confined to this small corner of northeast Iraq. He traveled to Baghdad in May of 2002 for medical treatment, staying in the capital of Iraq for two months while he recuperated to fight another day... During his stay, nearly two dozen extremists converged on Baghdad and established a base of operations there. These al-Qaida affiliates based in Baghdad now coordinate the movement of people, money and supplies into and throughout Iraq for his network, and they have now been operating freely in the capital for more than eight months... Iraqi officials deny accusations of ties with al-Qaida. These denials are simply not credible. Last year, an al-Qaida associate bragged that the situation in Iraq was 'good,' that Baghdad could be transited quickly... From his terrorist network in Iraq, Zarqawi can direct his network in the Middle East and beyond." Very clearly, the White House was focused on al Zarqawi, a known al Qaeda associate, accepting safe haven inside of Iraq, and were rightly concerned that al Qaeda was setting up base in Iraq after the Taliban's fall in Afghanistan.

        These concerns proved to be correct, since after the fall of Hussein's regime, al Zarqawi remained to organize attacks against the people of Iraq and the nascent democratic movement there.  His recent demise has turned up a treasure trove of intelligence which has enabled ISF and MNF to uproot al Qaeda's foothold in Iraq which had been in place for a few years now, and in short order, his network is being killed and captured.  It turns out that much of the intelligence was stored on a [flash]* drive, along with much documentation that was located at his compound in Diyala.  If Democrats who had opposed the expansion of the war on terror into Iraq from the beginning had had their way, the MNF would have never had the opportunity to eliminate this al Qaeda network in Iraq, and instead, as then Secretary Powell noted, al Qaeda would have been directing attacks from their new base of operations inside of Iraq.  It was not the MNF which drew al Qaeda to Iraq, rather it was al Qaeda which in part drew the MNF to Iraq.  The Democrats' conventional sequencing of events has been blatantly dishonest in this regard, and the House, by calling the question on this important issue, has effectively brought to the forefront their dishonesty.  Instead, seeking to exploit the war for political gain, the Democrats have conditioned their base to see the world through their prism of revisionism, since apparently the facts tend to vindicate the notion that Iraq is indeed a theatre in this global war.  Upholding ideological consistency can be admirable in some cases, but not at the sacrifice of the truth.  The American people cannot be expected to make concrete judgments about this issue if there is such a partisan divide, though to be fair, those Democrats that voted in favor of this resolution today are to be commended for leveling with the American people. 

        On the issue of a premature withdrawal or redeployment out of Iraq by the end of the year, as has been suggested by Democratic leaders in Congress, including Senator John Kerry (D-MA) and Representative John Murtha (D-PA), Democrats against this theatre in the war have also been consistently wrong.  Rather than resolving to make a stand in Iraq, and to capitalize on recent successes, Democrats have instead chosen the path of cut-and-run.  Rather than putting the terrorists on the run, perhaps the President's political opponents have opted to let the terrorists to put the U.S. on the run.  A premature pull-out of Iraq would allow al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, and the insurgency at large, to claim victory against the most formidable military force in the history of the world, which would surely embolden them.  The MNF must uphold its international obligations and aid in maintaining peace and stability inside of Iraq as the security forces there are able to stand up.  We must remain for as long as we are required by the Iraqi government and as the situation dictates, as this could very well be the beginning of the end of al Qaeda in Iraq.

        The Iraqi people deserved today's vote of confidence by the House, and yesterday's vote in the Senate, that the unequivocal policy of the United States is to stay the course and see this war through to victory.  Iraq may very well become one of our greatest allies in this war, and we must be mindful of that country's needs and what they say they require as we conduct our own domestic political debate on our role there.  We do not turn our backs on our allies, and we must send a distinct message to those representatives who voted against today's resolution that Iraq is indeed the central front in this war against terrorists and tyrants.  Calling this question is not a political stunt, as has been alleged, rather engaging the politics of revisionism, denying historical facts, and declaring American defeat in the midst of recent victories is.