New Directions for Iraq

The American people have spoken at the ballot box that the situation in Iraq is not acceptable. The Democrats have promised “change” and “a new direction.”  It is now time to decide what that new direction is going to be.

With the understanding that “Iraq” is practically a euphemism for the entirety of the war against radical Islam, what follows is three possible models for change in how we intend to deal with this threat:

Policy No. 1: Neo-Isolationism

This is the preferred method for dealing with terrorists to members of the political left that dislike utilizing military power and the United States’ status as a superpower to further our interests. Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha are examples of neo-isolationists who would favor this model.

Under neo-isolationism, the United States and its allies would tone down the use of force and instead attempt to dissuade our enemies from hating us by working with them. This plan calls for pulling out of Iraq almost immediately and Afghanistan as soon as possible. We would be much less likely to back the Israelis in their dispute with the Palestinians.

Neo-isolationism is based on the idea that our enemies in the Middle East hate us because we have tampered too much in their affairs. So we would resort to force only when attacked or provoked in some other manner. We would welcome one-on-one talks with states such as Iran and Syria and would treat them as equals.

This plan would likely require the United States to drill for oil in the ANWR region of Alaska and off the coast of Florida since we would need to become energy independent as soon as possible.

Policy No. 2: Terrorism Management

This is the moderate plan. It calls for common sense approaches to fighting terrorism around the world as necessary—but not aggressively. A “management” plan recognizes that a stable Middle East is imperative for the production of energy and the general well being of the world.

Terrorism management seeks to make it clear to our enemies that the United States is loathe to use its vast military power, but that it will use it if necessary. America and its allies would continue to support Israel’s right to exist. Saddam-like aggression toward a neighboring country would be considered an act of war.

Managing terror means that the U.S. and its allies stay out of the affairs of Middle Eastern nations unless they become provocative—such as Iran’s push for nuclear weapons. In such cases, management techniques would be employed, ranging from sanctions to military strikes.

Terrorism management is a tit-for-tat plan similar in style to the way we managed the Cold War. If the enemy makes a move, we make a counter move. This model is generally non-aggressive, but will not hesitate to use whatever tactics are necessary to maintain a semblance of peace. It seeks to maintain the oil pipeline between countries such as Saudi Arabia and the United States, and that means pretending that Saudi Arabia is an ally.

This is the model that calls for training the Iraqis to secure their own country, and later, trying the same thing in Afghanistan.

Policy No. 3: Aggressive Preemption

The ultimate neo-con strategy, aggressive preemption calls for identifying enemies and taking them out before they can develop and deploy weapons of mass destruction. This is the Bush Doctrine on steroids.

Aggressive preemption recognizes that extreme elements within radical Islam cannot be negotiated with, and will not rest until western civilization is brought to its knees. This model takes into account the unrelenting onslaught of propaganda that permeates certain Middle Eastern nations through state radio, TV, newspapers, and even in classrooms.

Aggressive Preemption is not politically correct and is not concerned about collateral damage. It holds that the only way to win the war against radical Islam (a.k.a. the War on Terror) is to kill the terrorists. And since the terrorists and others that have embraced jihad cannot be rehabilitated, they must be, to a large extent, wiped out.

Under this model, a “coalition of the willing” might be formed to send in massive armies to effect regime change in nations like Iran and Syria—and others in the event that terrorist incidents were to continue. If such a coalition could not be formed, the United States would then go it alone. The use of nuclear power would be on the table.

Some nation building would be necessary, but insurgencies would not be tolerated, as any state suspected of supplying insurgents would be attacked. Aggressive preemption would leave a lot of dead bodies and ruined cities in its wake, but would end terrorism as we know it.

Three possibilities—passive, moderate, and proactive—that might change the course of history with regard to the Free World and the global theocracy as envisioned by radical Islam. Change is in the wind. Which will it be?