I'm an independent filmmaker with no ties to the health insurance or healthcare industry -- only a personal concern about American liberty and medical freedom. I've made a number of short films about health care policy -- specifically for the internet -- and featured on a new website: www.freemarketcure.com.
Michael Moore's new movie, "Sicko", is set to inject a large dose of misinformation and propaganda into our national dialog about health care policy. According to one observer, Michael Moore has created a love letter to the Canadian system. However, Americans should know that Canada rations health care and that many Canadians wait inordinately long periods of time for urgent medical treatment. The Fraser Institute's annual report "Waiting Your Turn" estimates that Canadians are waiting for nearly 800,000 medical procedures. If the Canadian system was adopted in the U.S. -- and you assume one person per treatment - that would translate to nearly 7.3 million Americans. Not 7.3 million Americans theoretically without health care due to a lack of insurance -- but 7.3 million Americans who need medical treatment but cannot get it without being on long waiting lists.
How long? In Canada, it depends on the province and the type of treatment. The median wait time for medical treatment in Canada in 2006 was 17.8 weeks. However, this doesn't tell the whole story. It's not hard to find Canadians who have waited months to get an MRI, and years for some types of treatments. There are multiple kinds of waits in the Canadian system: the wait to see a specialist, the wait to get a diagnostic test, the wait to get surgery -- and then the wait for rescheduled surgery after one's initial surgical appointment has been cancelled -- sometimes multiple times -- a routine phenomenon. Waits for orthopedic surgery can be multiple years - and in the case of some elderly Canadians - forever. Waits for things like gastric bypass and sleep apnea treatment are routinely 4-5 years.
My short movie, "A Short Course in Brain Surgery," highlights the plight of Lindsay McCreith, a Canadian with a suspected brain tumor who had to wait four months for an MRI. Instead, he crossed the border to the U.S and got it in two days. He then faced another four month wait just to see a specialist in order to schedule surgery which would represent yet another wait. Instead, he had the tumor removed in the U.S. -- immediately. It turned out to be early stage brain cancer.
Another short, "Two Women," chronicles the sad story of Janice Fraser who, unable to urinate, needed to have a pacemaker-type device implanted to control her bladder. Unfortunately, the hospital arbitrarily rationed the operation by doing only one per month. Janice was number 32 on the list -- nearly a three year wait. She ended up waiting so long that she developed life-threatening infections, had to have her bladder removed in an emergency procedure, and will now wear a urine bag for the rest of her life.
"The Lemon" tells the story of Shirley Healey who was suffering from a near total blockage of her mesoenteric artery, which feeds blood to the bowels. She was slowly starving and risked death by waiting in Canada. She came to Bellingham, Washington where she got her life-saving operation immediately. The American surgeon who operated said that the Canadian patients are the worst, most dangerous cases he sees -- due to the long waits.
Consider this: across Canada, thousands of baby boomers and the elderly often wait years for knee and hip replacements; often in great pain while taking powerful narcotics. However, a dog in Canada can get a joint replacement operation at a veterinary hospital done in a matter of weeks.
The real danger of adopting a system like the one in Canada is not just long waits for medical treatment. Americans would pay much higher taxes and lose important liberties while turning over personal life-and-death decisions to government bureaucrats.
Chris Field's e-mail address is at the bottom of this article. I invite all sane people to write him and tell him just what a big $%&!@ he is.
Of course gun control advocates are going to "take advantage" of this latest preventable shooting rampage! After all, it's just another example – after dozens of other rampage shootings, year after year – of what we've been arguing for years: Any benefits from gun ownership are HUGELY outweighed by the harm that the easy availability of lethal firearms and ammunition poses for innocent Americans.
What's more, this author and other conservative pundits have the balls to argue that this tragedy could have been prevented by – get this! – allowing "law abiding" VA Tech students to carry firearms on campus. Excuse me, but this Cho Seung-hui was a law-abiding student… up until he murdered 33 people yesterday. So... they're telling us that even more guns on college campuses is the answer?! What the f%#!? What do they want to VA Tech to be, the OK-Corral or a hallowed place of learning?!
Ridiculously, Fields demands a "time out" for collective grief, instead of starting the inevitable debate about gun control now , while the senselessness and waste of these killings are fresh in our minds. Nice try, jackass. But the rational mind sees events like these and immediately goes to the source of the problem: the abundance of firearms in our society. The rational mind, sharpened by disaster, immediately seeks out and finds the source of the problem. The rational mind demands honest appraisal. And angry citizens demand justice. Who's going to give us straight answers? Who's going to make sure this doesn't happen again? The f-ing NRA? George Bush?
All you right-thinking people, send this Chris Fields an e-mail and tell him where to stick it. And then write your Congressmen and Senators and tell them that you want strict gun control everywhere, no exceptions.
It aint 1776 anymore, kids. The only King George we've got is in the White House -- and he hates gun control. Fat lot of good that's done us!
Media Spins Va.-Tech Tragedy for Gun Control
By Chris Field
April 17, 2007 | Human Events
Even a national tragedy like the shooting massacre on the campus of Virginia Tech will not delay the New York Times and congressional gun-control advocates in their quest to push their liberal agenda.
In the New York Times lead editorial today, which was likely written mere hours after the nation's worst gun rampage in history and before the bodies had cooled, the gray lady is calling for more gun control. (In fact, the editorial was probably already largely written a long time ago, they just needed the "where," "when" and number of victims.)
The Times didn't have the sensibility to wait even 24 hours before calling for more gun control. From the editorial titled (not surprisingly) "Eight Years After Columbine":
Yesterday's mass shooting at Virginia Tech -- the worst in American history -- is another horrifying reminder that some of the gravest dangers Americans face come from killers at home armed with guns that are frighteningly easy to obtain. Not much is known about the gunman, who killed himself, or about his motives or how he got his weapons, so it is premature to draw too many lessons from this tragedy. But it seems a safe bet that in one way or another, this will turn out to be another instance in which an unstable or criminally minded individual had no trouble arming himself and harming defenseless people. [...]
Sympathy was not enough at the time of Columbine, and eight years later it is not enough. What is needed, urgently, is stronger controls over the lethal weapons that cause such wasteful carnage and such unbearable loss.
Besides the audacity of using this tragedy to immediately push their liberal agenda, the Times editorialists failed to mentioned that there is a complete gun ban on the campus of Virginia Tech, and that ban didn't stop the shooter.
In fact, the VT gun ban was the subject of an excellent op-ed by Bradford Wiles, a Virginia Tech graduate student, in the Roanoke Times last year. Wiles, who had been evacuated Aug. 21, 2006, from the VT Squires Student Center with several other students when the campus was shut down as police searched for an escaped inmate who had reportedly killed a sheriff's deputy and a hospital guard, pleaded with readers "to work with me to allow my most basic right of self-defense, and eliminate my entrusting my safety and the safety of my classmates to the government."
And lest you think the New York Times is the only perpetrator of this offense, Congressional Quarterly reported last night on gun-control advocates in Congress who see this as their chance:
Gun control advocates in Congress quickly cited the Virginia Tech shootings as evidence of the need for tighter firearm restrictions. "I believe this will reignite the dormant effort to pass common-sense gun regulations in this nation," Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Monday. The California Democrat has led efforts to renew the expired ban on so-called assault weapons (PL 103-322). [...]
Even Congress' leading gun control advocate, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., conceded that efforts to renew the assault weapons ban and limit high-capacity ammunition clips stood little chance of passage.
But on Monday, McCarthy and her staff were more optimistic.
"We're going to be stepping it up in light of this," said George Burke, a spokesman for McCarthy, whose husband was killed and son was severely wounded by a gunman on the Long Island Rail Road in 1993.
McCarthy introduced legislation in February (HR 1022) that would reauthorize the assault weapons ban.
"It has been more than a decade since meaningful legislation that would prevent gun violence has been signed into law," McCarthy said in a statement Monday. "This pattern must change. For too long Congress has stood idle while gun violence continues to take its toll. The unfortunate situation in Virginia could have been avoided if Congressional leaders stood up to the gun lobby.
There's time for these debates the in days and weeks to come -- and rest assured, those debates will happen. But the anti-gun crowd needn't be "more optimistic" in the wake of such a tragedy. They ought to be heartbroken like the rest of America they claim to represent.
He can be contacted at Chris.Field@humaneventsonline.com
Posted Jan 18, 2007 | HumanEvents.com
Regrettably, the Iraq Study Group failed to offer, by its own admission, any big new breakthrough ideas or "magic formulas" for turning the tide in Iraq before the make or break 2008 election. Nor does the President's latest strategy pronouncement which offers far too little, too late. It will accomplish nothing but reaffirm to the enemy that the Great Satan is all bark and no bite. Nevertheless Iraq can still be saved with a bold new strategy that finally recognizes Iraq is the absolutely must-win first round in an undeclared war with Iran for control of all Persian Gulf oil—40% of the world's present supply and 65% of its reserves. The outcome ultimately could also determine the fate of Israel and the future likelihood of a catastrophic WMD attack on our homeland. [I think this "undeclared war" has been pretty much declared, and Bush is the one who declared it. -- J]
With the stakes so high, the situation in Iraq so desperate and the time to produce results so short, we cannot afford to gamble on whether the Iraqis shape up or our enemies see the light. We must take full charge of the war and do whatever necessary to ensure victory—no matter the cost and before it's too late. [Italics mine – J]
First and foremost we must do the one thing that can still soon begin to change the dynamics on the ground dramatically in our favor and help compensate for our inability to quickly field very substantially increased numbers of reliable, properly trained Coalition forces: Starting in Baghdad and other hot spots, draft all Iraqi males of combat age, except in the Kurdish-controlled north, and essentially run the country ourselves until order and stability are restored. Before totally taking over we might give Maliki 90 days to quell the violence or get out of the way. To expect serious cooperation from a dysfunctional government beholden to powerful factions within it who are diametrically opposed to our own goals is wishful thinking.
Absent a draft, it would likely take at least 1.0 million additional troops to defeat the enemy. [Now we're talking! At last, a little honesty. So, if we can't put 1 million more troops into Iraq, we shouldn't continue the Iraq occupation. -- J] The draft would drain much of the insurgents' and militias' large manpower pool and deny them the ability to freely circulate. Most are not ideologues and it's far cheaper to hire them than to fight them. [This is madness. We'll need at least one full-time U.S. babysitter for every troop we draft off the street. I mean, what, are we just going to hand them all M-16s and say, "Welcome to the Iraqi Army. Have at it, soldier!"? Experience tells us they'll either desert the ranks, or turn into somebody's death squad. And there's not a single Iraqi battalion prepared to fight on its own. Properly training and equipping Iraqi troops takes months, if not years. We don't have that long, nor do we have the manpower and resources to train so many new Iraqi troops. -- J] Also key is securing the cooperation of many influential sheiks and tribal leaders with performance based rewards. Additionally:
Demand the Iranians and Syrians stop aiding insurgents and militias or suffer devastating consequences. [Such as?.... Seriously, what are we gonna do? -- J]
Recruit and train at least 500,000 troops from outside Iraq—offering U.S. citizenship to fill the ranks, making us less reliant on Iraqi security forces. Because success in Iraq is crucial to winning the War on Terror, it's foolhardy to allow their performance to determine the outcome of our mission—a widely held notion we must disabuse ourselves of.
An "International Freedom Force" would minimize U.S. casualties and is the only way the American public will accept our ongoing heavy involvement in Iraq and other War on Terror battlefields.
Redeploy many U.S. troops from violent zones to both secure the borders and embed with Iraqi units. Pump more money into better equipping them and restoring basic services.
Put U.S. on a war footing at home, for we are in a life and death struggle for our survival as a superpower.
Above all, we can no longer afford to grossly underestimate the enormity of the task ahead. Given the self-defeating constraints we have imposed on ourselves, our enemies can sustain the conflict at its current or higher level indefinitely. At best we are continuing to fight a holding action with no hope of victory and ultimate failure guaranteed. [Correct. That's why a "surge" of 21,000 troops will make no difference whatsoever, and is a cynical ploy by Bush's to forestall the day of reckoning until 2008. -- J]
We have one more chance to get it right in Iraq before Congress and the American people lower the boom. It's too late for any more half-way measures. A temporary, nominal surge in U.S. forces to secure Baghdad will, by itself, achieve nothing of lasting value and by its failure further convince the skeptics that Iraq is a lost cause. Then the radicals' tactics of terror, civil war and anarchy will not only force us out of Iraq, but set the pattern for their attempted takeover of the rest of the Middle East. [A "takeover" of the Middle East by each country's citizens, a la Iraq!? Syria run by Syrians, Jordan by Jordanians, Iran by Iranians?.... Yikes, perish the thought! -- J]
The overriding argument for succeeding in Iraq is that it will be vastly more difficult if not impossible to achieve regime change in Iran without our controlling Iraq. And without regime change in Iran it becomes highly questionable if we can win the War on Terror and prevent a massive WMD attack unless we ourselves resort, in desperation, to a knock-out nuclear attack on Iran. [Will somebody from the DNC give this guy a microphone and major media exposure and let him talk all he wants? Publicizing the paranoid, hawkish lunacy of the hard-core right when it comes to the "inevitable war with Iran" would do more for Democrats' chances in '08 than anything. All we have to do is show what they REALLY BELIEVE, and its inherent danger will appall all good Americans. – J]
Let us hope that it doesn't have to take a major WMD attack to wake up America. The WMD clock is ticking. Victory in what is fast becoming World War III will require the kind of will, commitment, sacrifice and leadership that we have not demonstrated since World War II. Our forefathers risked their careers, their fortunes and their very lives to win freedom and independence. Will we "bear any burden and pay any price" to preserve our own? [WW III? Really !?? Rebutting that common false claim will have to wait for another day.... -- J]
by Patrick J. Buchanan
Posted Jan 12, 2007
HumanEvents.com
Wednesday night, George Bush seemed to play his last card in the Iraq war. It was not impressive. Consider.
First, he warned of the awful consequences of a U.S. defeat: "Radical Islamic extremism would grow ... in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons."
Bush then warned of the awful consequences of the Baker commission proposal to "announce the phased withdrawal of our combat forces." "(T)o step back now would force a collapse of the Iraqi government, tear the country apart and result in mass killings on an unimaginable scale."
Twin those two warnings, and what is Bush saying?
His critics favor a course in Iraq that risks the fall of Baghdad, Iraq torn apart, slaughter of our friends, a surge in Islamic terror, the toppling of moderate Arab states, chaos in the Gulf, billions in oil revenue flowing to al-Qaida killers and a nuclear Iran.
And how do we avert so monstrous a calamity?
A "surge" of 21,500 troops, 15 percent of the U.S. forces already in Iraq, to pacify the capital. And even that troop commitment is "not open-ended."
This is just not credible. For, if the situation is as dire as Bush says and the potential disaster as horrific as he describes, the logical course would be to treble the number of troops in Iraq and commit to fight indefinitely.
How explain the disconnect? Is Bush absurdly exaggerating the consequences of a pullout?
No. U.S. strategic interests in the Middle East are indeed at risk because of the hubristic folly of our political elite in putting them there, when they launched this insane war.
But Bush cannot now commit to fight to victory, because the war is lost in the United States. Two-thirds of the American people are unwilling to make the sacrifices to save Iraq. Though they do not want a defeat and may not realize the consequences of a defeat, they are willing to risk a defeat, rather than continue to read of American kids being IED'ed to death and dismemberment in Baghdad and Anbar. The people want out and are saying to hell with the consequences.
That is the political realty that underlay the president's modest proposal of a "surge" to avert what he warns is a strategic disaster.
But Bush has to know the card he played is not going to save the pot into which he has plunged his legacy, the credibility of his country and America's standing as a superpower.
Which leads me to believe Bush has yet another card to play, an ace up his sleeve. What might that be?
Midway through his speech, almost as an aside, Bush made a pointed accusation at and issued a direct threat to -- Tehran.
To defend the "territorial integrity" of Iraq and stabilize "the region in the face of extremist challenge," Bush interjected, "begins with addressing Iran and Syria."
"These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."
Now, any networks providing "advanced weaponry and training" to jihadists and insurgents are outside Iraq. Otherwise, they would have been neutralized by air strikes already.
So, where are they? Answer: inside Syria and Iran. And Bush says we are going to "seek out and destroy" these networks.
Which suggests to this writer that, while the "surge" is modest, Bush has in mind a different kind of escalation -- widening the war by attacking the source of instability in the region: Tehran.
"I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region," said Bush. "We will deploy ... Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies."
But there is no need for more carrier-based fighter-bombers in Iraq. And the insurgents have no missiles against which anyone would need Patriot missiles to defend. You only need Patriots if your target country has missiles with which to retaliate against you.
What Bush signaled in the clear Wednesday is that air strikes on Iranian "networks" are being planned. That would produce an Iranian response. That response would trigger U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, for which Israel and the neocons are howling.
And should this scenario play out, what would Hillary, Biden, Kerry, McCain, Giuliani, and even Pelosi and Obama do? Hail Bush as a Churchill. At first.
And Bush would have another legacy than a lost war in Iraq. Like Menachem Begin, only big-time, he would have his own Osirak.
Searching for Victory in Iraq: Why the Baker-Hamilton Commission Ought to Visit Mount Vernon
by Newt Gingrich
Posted Nov 27, 2006
The Sunday before Thanksgiving, Callista and I took some friends to Mount Vernon to see the new education center. It is an amazing tribute to George Washington and the creation of America.
We watched a movie about George Washington's crossing the Delaware on Christmas Eve and surprising the Hessians (German mercenaries) on Christmas Day in Trenton. As I watched, I was struck by the amazing difference between the attitude of the Father of our Country and the current attitudes in the city that bears his name.
Gen. Washington had a long and painful summer and autumn of defeat in 1776. His American Army had been defeated across New York -- in Brooklyn, Manhattan and White Plains -- and then driven across New Jersey and forced to flee across the Delaware River into Pennsylvania.
Washington's Night Crossing: 'Victory or Death'
Washington's forces had dwindled until he had only about 4,000 effective soldiers left. There were another 6,000 men present, but they were so sick they were unable to go into battle.
Faced with declining morale, rising desertions, the collapse of political will in the country at large and a sense of despair, Washington decided to gamble everything on a surprise attack. It would require a night crossing of an icy river against a formidable professional opponent.
But the most telling sign of Washington's mood as he embarked on the mission was his choice of a password. His men said "victory or death" to identify themselves.
What if There Had Been a Baker-Hamilton Commission Advising Gen. Washington?
That night crossing, immortalized in paintings of Washington's standing in the boat as Marblehead Fishermen rowed him across the ice-strewn river, led to an amazing victory on Christmas Day. That victory led to a surge in American morale and a doubling in the size of the American forces under Washington within two weeks. And that gave Washington the strength to win a second surprise victory at Princeton.
In two weeks, Washington had gone from defeated, hopeless bungler to victorious American hero and personification of the American Cause.
Imagine there had been a Baker-Hamilton Commission -- the group charged with assessing our options in Iraq -- advising Washington that cold Christmas Eve. What "practical, realistic" advice would they have given him?
Eleven Key Tests for the Baker-Hamilton Report
Will the Baker-Hamilton Commission make a real contribution in helping us win the war against the Fanatic wing of Islam? [What's the name of Baker's commission? That's right: "The Iraq Study Group." It's not the "Fanatic Islam Study Group," or the "Islamofascism Study Group," or the "Let's Go to War With Everybody Just to Feel Safe Group." It's about the war we're physically involved in in Iraq. Gingrich is already trying to blur the lines; he's actively promoting 'mission creep.' Don't be fooled! -- J] Or will it be simply one more establishment effort to hide defeat so the American political system can resume its comfortable insider games without having to solve real problems in the larger world? Here are 11 key things to look for in the commission's report:
1. Does the Commission Have a Vision for Success in the Larger War Against the Dictatorships and Fanatics Who Want to Destroy Us?
If Iraq were only a one-step process, the answer might be to leave. But the reality is that Iraq is a single campaign within a much bigger war and within a power struggle over both the evolution of Islam and the rise of dictatorships seeking nuclear and biological weapons to enable them to destroy America and her allies. [No, no, and no. Iraq is an easily accessible battleground against us for al Qaeda only because we were stupid enough to park ourselves there as sitting ducks. If we leave, we take the bullseyes on our backs with us. -- J] If the Baker-Hamilton Commission does not take this into account, it is a dangerously misleading report.
2. Does the Commission Recognize That the Second Campaign in Iraq Has Been a Failure?
This is the hardest thing for Washington-centric bureaucracies to accept. [Hilarious! Who in the world is he talking about here? Is Bush some kind of big gubument bureaucrat now? Or, could Gingrich possibly be criticizing the Pentagon, whose big gubument budget never, ever gets cut by a good conservative? -- J] There was a very successful 23-day campaign to drive Saddam out of power. It used America's strengths, and it worked. The second campaign has been an abject failure. We and our Iraqi allies do not have control of Iraq. We cannot guarantee security. There is not enough economic activity to keep young males employed. If the Baker-Hamilton Commission cannot bring itself to recognize a defeat as a defeat, then it cannot recommend the scale of change that is needed to develop a potentially successful third campaign.
3. Does the Commission Recognize the Scale of Change We Will Need to Adopt to Be Effective in a World of Enemies Willing to Kill Themselves in Order to Kill Us?
We need fundamental change in our military doctrine, training and structures, our intelligence capabilities and our integration of civilian and military activities. The instruments of American power simply do not work at the speed and detail needed to defeat the kind of enemies we are encountering. The American bureaucracies would rather claim the problem is too hard and leave, because being forced to change this deeply will be very painful and very controversial. Yet we have to learn to win.
Learning to win requires much more than changes in the military. It requires changes in how our intelligence, diplomatic, information and economic institutions work. It requires the development of an integrated approach in which all aspects of American power can be brought to bear to achieve victory. Furthermore, this strategy for victory has to be doubly powerful. For three years, we have failed to build an effective Iraqi government, and we now have a shattered local system with many players using violence in desperate bids to maximize their positions. The plan has to be powerful enough to succeed despite Iraqi weaknesses and not by relying on a clearly uncertain and unstable Iraqi political system. [Care to share the details of your brilliant military reform plan, Newt? -- J]
4. Does the Commission Describe the Consequences of Defeat in Iraq?
What would the withdrawal of U.S. troops in Iraq look like? Frederick Kagan [infamous neocon -- J] of the American Enterprise Institute recently offered this chilling picture:
"The pullback of U.S. forces to their bases will not reduce the sectarian conflict, which their presence did not generate -- it will increase it. Death squads on both sides will become more active. Large-scale ethnic and sectarian cleansing will begin as each side attempts to establish homogeneous enclaves where there are now mixed communities. Atrocities will mount, as they always do in ethnic cleansing operations. Iraqis who have cooperated with the Americans will be targeted by radicals on both sides. Some of them will try to flee with the American units. American troops will watch helplessly as death squads execute women and children. Pictures of this will play constantly on Al Jazeera. Prominent 'collaborators,' with whom our soldiers and leaders worked, will be publicly executed. Crowds of refugees could overwhelm not merely Iraq's neighbors but also the [Forward Operating Bases] themselves. Soldiers will have to hold off fearful, tearful, and dangerous mobs."
[This may be a real possibility, but again, Gingrich (quoting neocon Kagan) is blurring his mission objectives. Is the point of the Iraq occupation to protect Iraqis, or to promote U.S. interests and safety? If it's all about the former, then I would suggest that U.S. troops would save more lives by going to Darfur to stop the ethnic cleansing there. No, I'm not changing the subject. I'm asking, "What are acceptable reasons to deploy U.S. troops?" Neither Bush nor Gingrich chooses to answer that question. They want every excuse in the book available to them to put our troops in harm's way, and the freedom to keep changing excuses. But only if we let 'em! -- J]
5. Does the Commission Understand the Importance of Victory?
Winning is key. We are in a power struggle on a worldwide basis with dictators who want to defeat us (Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea) and with fanatic organizations that want to kill us (al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc) [Gingrich has just described the makings of the biggest, longest, most scatterbrained goddamn war in human history. He is literally insane. Think about what he just wrote. We'd have to start drafting grandparents to fight such a war. It's insane. -- J] In a struggle like this, the goal has to be to win. Anything less than victory is very dangerous, because it allows our enemies to gather more capabilities and prepare for more dangerous campaigns. Time is not on our side. Time is on the side of those seeking nuclear and biological weapons to use against the civilized world.
6. Does the Commission Define What It Means to Win, or Simply Find a Face-Saving Way to Lose?
Winning is very definable. Can we protect our friends [Israel, Israel and, um, Israel -- J] and hurt our enemies [everybody else -- J] ? Are they more afraid of us, or are we more afraid of them? [Are we talking about American foreign policy, or a Don Knotts movie?! -- J] The recent Syrian assassination of a Lebanese Christian leader who was pro-Western is a signal that they are not afraid of us. [Here's a crazy thought: Maybe they weren't thinking about us at all! But that's just too depressing to consider. I mean, hating us is one thing, we're used to that; but ignoring us would be intolerable. -- J] The North Korean decisions to launch seven missiles on our Independence Day and to set off a nuclear weapon were signs they have contempt for our warnings. The statements of Ahmadinejad (the Iranian dictator) [who was democratically elected] and Hugo Chavez (the Venezuelan dictator) [also elected] indicate how confident they are.
Today, the enemy [Remind me who they all are again? Maybe we can catch them all in their secret hideout, like in a James Bond movie, and blow them up all at once, then we wouldn't have to invade and occupy their countries! Whaddya think, Newt? -- J] thinks they are winning, and our elites seem to be seeking face-saving cover behind which to accept defeat. Does the Baker-Hamilton Commission have a proposal for victory or a proposal for accepting defeat gracefully? Will it offer a diplomatic deal allowing us to pretend we are okay while our enemies gather strength? [Wait, now I'm confused. Are we fighting an "enemy" or several "enemies," and how exactly do they all get together and make their decisions? I guess it must really be like S.P.E.C.T.R.E. from the Bond films. Quick, do satellite imaging scans of every remote, scary-looking anthropomorphic volcano, that's where SPECTRE always hides! -- J]
7. Does the Commission Acknowledge That Winning Requires Thinking Regionally and Even Globally?
In Afghanistan, we are engaged in an Afghanistan-Waziristan war in which our enemies retreat into Waziristan in Northwest Pakistan and re-arm, re-equip, retrain and rest before coming back into Afghanistan. We will never win that war by engaging only in Afghanistan. [Finish your thought, Newt! Ooh, stop teasing us! Where else should we engage? Whom else should we kill? What else should we f- up? Just tell us, oh Newt, and we shall obey! ... That's what kills me about these neocons: outside their think tanks and their obscure treatises which nobody reads, they're scared to say what they really want, i.e. kill everybody. -- J] In Iraq, the problems may require much more direct confrontation with Iran and Syria. [Mission creep again, watch out! -- J] In Lebanon, it is impossible to create a stable democratic government and disarm Hezbollah as long as Syria and Iran are deeply involved in killing Lebanese leaders and supplying Hezbollah.
8. Any Proposal to Ask Iran and Syria to Help Is a Sign of Defeat. Does the Commission Suggest This?
Iran and Syria are the wolves in the region. They are the primary trouble makers. You don't invite wolves into the kitchen to help with dinner or you become dinner. The State Department Report on Terrorism in April 2006 said: "Iran and Syria routinely provide unique safe haven, substantial resources and guidance to terrorist organizations." It went on to say: "Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism." It noted that in Iraq the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (an arm of the Iranian dictatorship) "was increasingly involved in supplying lethal assistance to Iraqi militant groups which destabilize Iraq."
How can the Baker Hamilton Commission seriously suggest that two dictatorships described like this are going to be "helpers" in achieving American goals in the Middle East? [Because Iran and Syria have more influence in the region than we do, that's why! Uncomfortable truths kind of stick in your craw, don't they, Newt? -- J]
9. Does the Commission Believe We Can 'Do a Deal' With Iran?
The clear effort by the Iranians to acquire nuclear weapons and Ahmadinejad's assertion that it is easy to imagine a time in the near future when the United States and Israel have both disappeared should be adequate proof that the Iranian dictatorship is the active enemy of America. [Newt, I heard some kid sprayed anti-American graffitti on an overpass in Venezeula. Should we nuke his village, or just torture his parents? ... Sticks and stones, sticks and stones! -- J] Couple that with the fact that the Iranians lied to the International Atomic Energy Agency for 18 years while trying to develop a nuclear weapon. Either this is a dangerous regime we need to fundamentally change, or it is a reasonable regime with which we can deal. [He forgot option C: a potentially dangerous regime that we can contain, together with our allies. India and Pakistan both have nukes, and I'd say are more likely to use them than Iran, but we don't seem to care about 'bygones.' -- J]
Presidential speeches and State Department documents clearly indicate it is a dangerous regime, yet there is a permanent Washington establishment desire to avoid conflict and confrontation by "doing a deal." In the 1930s, that model was called appeasement, not realism, and it led to a disaster. [It's appeasement when you coddle or ignore a regime with expansionist aims. There's zero indication that Iran is planning to invade or conquer anybody. Big difference. -- J] We need a Churchill not a Chamberlain policy for the Middle East.
10. Does the Commission Believe We Are More Clever Than Our Enemies?
The al-Assad family has run Syria since 1971. [Not as long as the Saudi royal family (70+ years consecutive), the Jordanian royal family (50+ years), or Egypt's dictator Mubarak (25 years) -- all of them supposed U.S. allies! -- J] Hafiz Assad arranged for his son Bashar to succeed him. This family and its Alewite supporters represent a small minority of the Syrian people, but they maintain a relentlessly tough internal dictatorship that keeps power in their hands. In some ways, there are parallels between Bashar Assad and Kim Jong Il -- they both maintain family dictatorships with the support of a brutal system of internal controls. After 35 years of defying the United States, there is no reason to believe our diplomats are more clever than their ruthlessly survivor-oriented systems. Negotiating with them is an invitation to be taken to the cleaners and to extend the power, prestige and influence of our mortal enemies in the region.
Recent talk of reaching out to Syria has been met by the assassination of a Lebanese Minister and the intensifying of the Hezbollah blackmail tactics in Lebanon. Weakness from America leads to greater aggression from our enemies. The Baker-Hamilton Commission should focus on how to contain or defeat Syria, not on how to rely on them for help.
The Democratic victory in the 2006 election should not be used as an excuse to do the wrong thing. The Democrats are now confronting the responsibility and burden of power. Given the right information about Iran, Syria and Iraq, there is every reason to believe a bipartisan majority can be formed in both the House and Senate for a rational strategy for victory. Opposition to continuing the failed second campaign should not be translated into opposition to an American victory.
The Bush Administration should reach out to moderate Democrats and forge a bipartisan agenda for victory and, by March 2007, pass a bipartisan resolution for victory in Iraq and for stopping Iranian efforts to get nuclear weapons. That will set the basis for appropriations to continue the effort. The passage of a solid bipartisan bill in March would send a signal to the world that Americans are overwhelmingly in favor of defeating terrorism and defending America. That will dramatically lower the morale and confidence of our enemies.
These 11 steps would be a powerful basis on which to move forward in Iraq and in the world. What's more, they reflect the spirit of Gen. Washington when he chose "victory or death" as the motto of the campaign that led to the founding of America despite overwhelming odds.
Your friend,
Newt Gingrich
P.S. - I will be in the "Live Free of Die" state of New Hampshire today and tomorrow talking about, among other things, my new book, Rediscovering God in America. At a time when the speech of terrorists and fanatics threatens our very survival, our national elites [who are?... Bill Gates?... -- J] are most concerned with suppressing our religious expression. My book shows how our history and traditions put God at the center of our freedom. It's a powerful set of talking points to countermand the secular left's unending effort to remove God from the public square.
